State v. Helm

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Dahl

    2022 N.D. 212 (N.D. 2022)   Cited 11 times

    [¶9] This Court has concluded that if a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for review. State v. Spillum, 2021 ND 25, ¶ 9, 954 N.W.2d 673; State v. Helm, 2020 ND 155, ¶ 7, 946 N.W.2d 503. In Spillum, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to establish he possessed certain prohibited materials.

  2. State v. Jalloh

    2024 N.D. 186 (N.D. 2024)

    State v. Helm, 2020 ND 155, ¶¶ 6-7, 946 N.W.2d 503; see State v. Studhorse, 2024 ND 110, ¶ 25, 7 N.W.3d 253 (declining to review a jury instruction issue waived by defendant's affirmative statement he had no request for changes to the instructions). After review of the record, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the murder charge.

  3. State v. Studhorse

    2024 N.D. 110 (N.D. 2024)   Cited 7 times

    [¶28] "This Court has concluded that if a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for review." Dahl, 2022 ND 212, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Spillum, 2021 ND 25, ¶ 9, 954 N.W.2d 673; State v. Helm, 2020 ND 155, ¶ 7, 946 N.W.2d 503). But we may exercise our discretion to review for obvious error to ensure the integrity of judicial proceedings.

  4. State v. Sanchez

    2023 N.D. 106 (N.D. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    [¶9] Federal precedent is also informative on the issue. See State v. Helm, 2020 ND 155, ¶ 6, 946 N.W.2d 503 (explaining that when a state rule is derived from a federal rule, this Court may look to the federal courts' interpretation of identical or similar language as persuasive authority for interpreting its rule). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), a prior out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted is admissible if it is "consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive."

  5. State v. Yousif

    2022 N.D. 234 (N.D. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    "When our rule is derived from a federal rule, we may look to the federal courts' interpretation or construction of identical or similar language as persuasive authority for interpreting our rule." State v. Helm, 2020 ND 155, ¶ 6, 946 N.W.2d 503 (citations omitted). The Eighth Circuit similarly acknowledges "[u]nder Rule 613(b), a party seeking to introduce a prior inconsistent statement must ordinarily confront the witness with the prior inconsistent statement and afford him or her an opportunity to explain or deny the inconsistency."

  6. State v. Spillum

    2021 N.D. 25 (N.D. 2021)   Cited 6 times
    In Spillum, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at trial, arguing there was insufficient evidence to establish he possessed certain prohibited materials.

    [¶7] Under Rule 29(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant is required to move for a judgment of acquittal in a jury trial to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal. SeeState v. Helm , 2020 ND 155, ¶ 6, 946 N.W.2d 503. If a motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial on specified grounds, and those grounds did not include the claim on appeal, the defendant does not preserve that issue for this Court's review. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.