N.D. Supreme Court hears argument on whether preliminary hearing evidence showed probable cause in terrorizing charge

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in State v. Taylor Scott Lafondroys (case no. 20240325) over whether testimony at a preliminary hearing established probable cause for a charge of terrorizing and properly identified the defendant.

The state, represented by Madison Turner, Burley County assistant state's attorney, appealed a district court ruling that dismissed the charge for lack of probable cause. "We had two witnesses, the 911 caller, Patrick Lisonbee, and a responding officer," Turner told the justices, arguing the hearing record contained sufficient testimony to support identification and the elements of the offense.

The argument centered on whether a preliminary hearing requires testimony sufficient to connect the arrested person to the individual a witness observed. Turner noted the state had additional materials (an affidavit of probable cause, discovery disclosures, and body camera footage) that were not received into evidence at the hearing and that the district judge limited the court to matter presented at the hearing.

The justices questioned the state about gaps in the hearing record: whether the reporting witness stayed at the scene, whether he saw the arrested person's face, and whether officers, when they arrived, had sufficient basis to arrest the particular individual rather than another person in the area. Justice Daniel Crothers and other justices pressed Turner on why the affidavit of probable cause was not part of the hearing record and whether testimony in the record tied the arrested person to the person the witnesses had described.

Turner pointed to testimony that the arrest occurred at the location the reporting party had given, that an officer (identified in the hearing as Officer Pucklich) had located a knife on the arrested person, and that a third-party witness, Mr. Litton, testified he feared for the victim's life. Turner also cited precedent the state said supports treating reasonable inferences in favor of probable cause at the preliminary stage (State v. Mitchell, State v. Carrillo, State v. Foley).

Several justices said the record appeared to lack testimony eliminating alternative explanations (for example, multiple people in the parking lot) and that the district court had declined to consider the affidavit because the state rested before argument. Justice Lisa Fair McEvers and others asked whether requiring more specific identification evidence at preliminary hearings would effectively convert the hearing into a "mini trial," a concern Turner disputed.

No decision was announced from the bench. Chief Justice John Jensen told the attorneys, "This case will be taken under advisement as all cases are," and recess was set until the court's next session.

Background details from the hearing transcript indicate the preliminary hearing included testimony from the reporting party and at least one responding officer; the district court noted officer identification in its record but expressed doubt whether that identification tied the arrested person to the person seen by witnesses. The record also included an affidavit of probable cause that the district court declined to consider at the preliminary hearing because it was not introduced into evidence.