Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Dakota Supreme Court hears state appeal over post‑verdict Rule 29 decision in DUI case
Summary
At oral argument the state asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to review a district judge’s post‑verdict Rule 29 decision that defense counsel and the court characterized as an acquittal; the defense argued double‑jeopardy bars review and the court took the case under advisement.
The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument on an appeal by the state seeking to overturn a district court’s post‑verdict Rule 29 ruling in a fourth‑offense driving‑under‑the‑influence case and to reinstate a jury guilty verdict and remand for sentencing.
The issue before the court is whether the district court’s action was a quashing of the information that the state may appeal or a true acquittal that double‑jeopardy principles bar from review. The argument also touched on whether the Supreme Court may use supervisory power to correct an allegedly improper post‑verdict ruling and whether the case law supplies a purely legal standard that would allow review without resolving factual disputes.
Appellant counsel opened by saying the state had two primary arguments: that the district court’s second Rule 29 ruling amounted to a quashing of the information and thus was appealable, and that the Supreme Court could, under supervisory authority, reinstate the jury verdict and remand for sentencing. Counsel argued the district court’s comments indicated uncertainty about the law and that some of the judge’s comments—about the severity of penalties and the need for a “quantum number” for drug impairment—showed the court stepped beyond a neutral legal ruling.
Defense counsel, identifying herself as counsel for Mr. Krebs, told the court the district court’s post‑verdict ruling was a factual adjudication amounting to a true acquittal. "This is a factual dispute and so this is a true acquittal. You cannot reverse a true acquittal," she said, arguing that allowing review would violate double‑jeopardy protections because it would require re‑evaluating facts the district court resolved.
Both sides addressed precedent and procedure. Appellant counsel cited federal cases and argued the court could supervise the district court to correct an improper post‑verdict action without running afoul of statutory limits; defense counsel relied on United States Supreme Court authority and state decisions to say the Rule 29 determination here resolved factual questions (for example, whether the defendant’s driving demonstrated objective evidence of impairment) and so is not reviewable by the state.
Justices asked questions about the scope of Rule 29 post‑verdict practice, whether the district court had invited or directed renewal of the Rule 29 motion, and whether the contested ruling resolved primarily legal or factual questions. Counsel for the state argued that the district court’s statements and the sequence of rulings permitted appellate or supervisory review; defense counsel said the trial transcript shows the defense chose to renew the motion after the court inquired and that the court’s later factual findings ended the matter for purposes of double jeopardy.
No decision was announced from the bench. The court took the case under advisement and said a written opinion would follow in due course.
Why this matters: The case raises how far a state may appeal after a judge post‑verdict finds insufficient evidence and whether a supervising appellate court can reinstate a jury verdict without re‑resolving facts that a trial judge or jury previously decided. The court’s ruling will affect procedures for Rule 29 motions, the availability of supervisory relief, and the interplay between sufficiency review and double‑jeopardy protections in North Dakota.
