N.D. Supreme Court hears challenge to jury instructions in false‑information case

The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument in State of North Dakota v. Hope Marie Landsberger, file number 20240255, on whether jury instructions for the crime of providing false information to law enforcement accurately reflected the statute. Robert Togneh, appearing for the Burleigh County State's Attorney's Office, urged the court to affirm the conviction.

"The purpose of jury instructions is quite simple. It is to correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law," Togneh told the court, arguing the district court's pattern instructions matched the North Dakota Century Code "almost" word for word.

Togneh said the offense as charged requires proof of several elements, including that the defendant willfully gave false information and that the false information "may" have interfered with or materially misled a law‑enforcement officer. He told the justices the pattern instruction used in the case differs from the statute only in a minor phrasing change in the fifth element, and that the appellant's proposed instruction would add a separate sixth element and introduce a different mental state—"knowingly"—which he said would confuse jurors and conflict with the other element framed as "willfully."

Togneh also cited precedent, saying the court's prior decision in Hookam (as referenced in the transcript) interpreted the statute's use of the word "may" to require proof only that it was possible the officers' investigation could have been interfered with or misled. He argued the defense's proposed instruction would impose a higher burden contrary to that precedent.

Justice Lisa Fair McEvers asked whether the defense's proposal at the district court level constituted an objection that preserved the issue on appeal. Togneh responded that "there is not an explicit objection, but the argument that was made by the defense counsel in that particular case does object to the language that the court want[ed] to use," and said that, read with candor, the objection should be treated as preserved for appeal.

The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing. "This case will be taken under advisement as all cases are," Chief Justice Jon J. Jensen said, and the court adjourned until 1:30 p.m. He did not set a date for a written decision.

The argument focused narrowly on the wording and mens rea in competing jury instructions and whether the district court's use of pattern language was reversible error under North Dakota law. No evidentiary matters or sentencing questions were addressed in the recorded argument.