State v. Zurmiller

10 Citing cases

  1. People v. Betterton-Fike

    479 P.3d 436 (Colo. 2020)

    We apply this factor in aggravation.See State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring) (noting that a pattern of domestic violence is a means of exercising control over a partner); Phyllis A. Roestenberg, "Representing Children When There Are Allegations of Domestic Violence," 28 Nov. Colo. Law 77, 78 (Nov. 1999) (observing that "[i]n cases in which domestic violence is present, [ ]the dynamics are such that one party exercises control over the other with violence and emotional abuse"); Linell A. Letendre, "Beating Again and Again and Again: Why Washington Needs A New Rule of Evidence Admitting Prior Acts of Domestic Violence," 75 Wash. L. Rev. 973, 977 (2000) (discussing and citing authorities characterizing domestic violence as "an instrument of control"). Refusal to Acknowledge Wrongful Nature of Conduct – 9.22(g) : Respondent refused to acknowledge in this proceeding that he engaged in any wrongdoing.

  2. People v. Hill

    439 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    We do not find such conduct to be unselfish.See State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring) (noting that domestic violence is a means of exercising control over a partner).Personal or Emotional Problems – 9.32(c) : We heard credible testimony from both Respondent and Ms. Hill that at the time of Respondent’s misconduct the couple was struggling financially, including facing foreclosure of the family home, and that this financial stressor negatively influenced Respondent on a daily basis.

  3. People v. Saxon

    470 P.3d 927 (Colo. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    His true motivation, as reflected in the wording of his own emails, was to retaliate against Dildine for rejecting him.See, e.g., State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring) (noting that domestic violence is a means of exercising control over a partner).See Ex. S13.

  4. People v. Fei Qin

    470 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2016)

    We cannot find such conduct to be unselfish.See State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring) (noting that domestic violence is a means of exercising control over a partner).Personal and Emotional Problems—9.32(c) : Respondent walks a fine line here: although he asks that we count his mental disability as a mitigating personal or emotional problem, he also states that his mental health is not to blame for his act of domestic violence.

  5. People v. Olson

    470 P.3d 789 (Colo. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that a lawyer's domestic violence and efforts to dissuade the victim from testifying at the disciplinary hearing were illegal, but giving little weight to this aggravating factor because the criminal conduct formed the basis of the disciplinary charges

    Nevertheless, we find sufficient evidence of a selfish motive to apply this factor in aggravation.See State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring) (noting that domestic violence is a means of exercising control over a partner). Pattern of Misconduct—9.22(c) :

  6. People v. Falco

    470 P.3d 688 (Colo. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    We also find it inappropriate to apply this factor in light of the credible evidence that Respondent made dishonest statements to Michieli after Ms. Falco's 9–1–1 call.See State v. Zurmiller , 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring) (noting that domestic violence is a means of exercising control over a partner); Roestenberg at 78 (observing that "[i]n cases in which domestic violence is present, [ ]the dynamics are such that one party exercises control over the other with violence and emotional abuse").See, e.g .

  7. CITY OF FARGO v. DOTY

    622 N.W.2d 432 (N.D. 2000)

    The criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1), (3), (4), and (7). See State v. Zurmiller, 544 N.W.2d 139, 141 (N.D. 1996) (evidence and all inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict); State v. Austin, 520 N.W.2d 564, 570 (N.D. 1994) (we will reverse a criminal conviction only when no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt); State v. Schlickenmayer, 334 N.W.2d 196, 200 (N.D. 1983) (allowing a jury to view the scene of an incident is within the sound discretion of the trial court);City of Mandan v. Willman, 439 N.W.2d 92, 94 (N.D. 1989) (courts can refuse to give jury instructions that are inapplicable or irrelevant); State v. Hafner, 1998 ND 220, ¶ 18, 587 N.W.2d 177 (jury instructions are designed to inform the jury of the law and must not mislead); State v. Kreiger, 138 N.W.2d 597, 601 (N.D. 1965) (objections to a complaint must be made prior to proceeding to trial or those objections are waived); City of Bismarck v. Schoppert, 450 N.W.2d 757, 758 (N.D. 1990) (an ordinance does not conflict with state law unless the ordinance attempts

  8. State v. Keller

    550 N.W.2d 411 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    We will only reverse a criminal conviction if, after viewing the evidence and all inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Zurmiller, 544 N.W.2d 139, 141 (N.D. 1996); State v. Gonderman, 531 N.W.2d 11, 16 (N.D. 1995); Austin, 520 N.W.2d at 570. Under this standard of review, we conclude the evidence presented at trial, especially Marcia's testimony about Kevin's personal contacts with her, was more than sufficient for the guilty verdict.

  9. State v. Roberson

    586 N.W.2d 687 (N.D. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant has the burden of showing the evidence establishes no reasonable inference of guilt. State v. Zurmiller, 544 N.W.2d 139, 141 (N.D. 1996). [¶ 7] The jury's verdict is supported by the testimony of law enforcement officers who said they observed Roberson in an intoxicated state and by the testimony of a passing motorist who said he saw Roberson driving erratically and "staggering" after the accident.

  10. State v. B.H

    290 N.J. Super. 588 (App. Div. 1996)   Cited 7 times

    "Just as a pattern of domestic violence is one means of exercising control and domination over a household partner, so is stalking, harassing or threatening an ex-spouse." State v. Zurmiller, 544 N.W.2d 139, 142 (N.D. 1996) (Levine, J., concurring). Harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) is a petty disorderly persons offense, which does not require "serious" annoyance as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c).