Court Opinion

ID: 9807076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:46:46.068862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:22:10.584629
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶22] Because I believe an objective view of the evidence results in affirming the district court, I respectfully dissent.
[¶ 23] Brittney Berg overreaches on the law and on the facts. She summarized her claims of domestic violence: “The district court heard testimony that Brittney was subjected to a pattern of bullying, controlling, and physical force.” But that does not meet the statutory definition of domestic violence as “physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, sexual activity compelled by physical force, or assault, not committed in self-defense, on the complaining family or household members.” N.D.C.C. § 14-07.1-01(2). She asserts Darin Mowan threatened to harm himself, but the record reflects she never testified she was in fear that he would actually do so, and her testimony reflects she did not take the threats seriously. She asserts in her brief that she left the home because of threats, but her testimony reflects she testified that she left because he called her names. Her brief asserts she called the police “because she feared for her safety,” but the transcript reflects that was not her testimony.
[¶ 24] The record establishes there was domestic violence by Brittney Berg, as shown by the criminal conviction following her guilty plea to “simple assault-domestic.” She may not collaterally attack that conviction. See Holkesvig v. Welte, 2012 ND 142, ¶ 5, 818 N.W.2d 760; Holkesvig v. Welte, 2012 ND 236, ¶ 1, 823 N.W.2d 786. Nor do I believe she can complain that the court did not treat the conviction as relevant in ruling against her.
[¶ 25] DALE V. SANDSTROM, J., dissents.