North Dakota Supreme Court hears argument in State v. Darien Deshaun Jackson; case taken under advisement

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in State of North Dakota v. Darien Deshaun Jackson, focusing on whether the evidence supported a murder conviction characterized as "willfully" rather than an alternative mens rea, and took the case under advisement, the court said.

The case matters because the justices probed whether the jury was correctly instructed and whether the record contained sufficient evidence to sustain a murder conviction given the defendant's claim of self-defense. A written decision will be posted on the court's website after the justices take the case under advisement.

At the outset of argument, the clerk called file number 20240234. Sitting with the chief justice were Justice Daniel Carothers, Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, Justice Jared Tufti, Justice Douglas Barr and Justice John Jensen.

Attorney Samuel Jurasick, representing the appellant, told the court his briefs addressed the issues and invited questions from the justices. Jurasick said he had "covered everything in the briefs" and indicated he was prepared to concede unused time if the court had no further questions.

Jurasick argued that the self-defense theory was intended to cover the various mental-state alternatives the jury was instructed on. He acknowledged the record focused on whether the defendant acted "willfully" but said the self-defense aspect applied more broadly to the charged alternatives.

Rosanna Larson, representing the State of North Dakota, told the court the appellant's brief did not address an alternative mens rea her office had charged. Larson said the jury was instructed on alternative theories and returned a verdict of guilty on murder, and she urged the justices not to substitute their judgment for the jury's verdict. "If you watch that, I think it becomes quite clear that the jury got this verdict right," Larson said, referring to exhibits the court had requested, including a video of the incident.

Several justices asked follow-up questions about the interplay between the alternative charging formats and the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard. Defense counsel said the self-defense claim and the prior fear the defendant allegedly experienced were relevant to the mental-state analysis.

The court did not announce a decision at the hearing. "This case will be taken under advisement as all cases are," the presiding justice said, and the court adjourned until 9:30 a.m. the following day, Friday, January 10. The court typically posts written opinions on its website in the weeks after oral argument.

No ruling was issued at the oral argument; the written decision will reflect the court's analysis of the briefing, the oral argument and the admitted exhibits.