State v. Finneman, 20170400
Citation | 916 N.W.2d 619 |
Decision Date | 28 August 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 20170400,20170400 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Jesseaca FINNEMAN, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Nathan K. Madden, Williams County Assistant State’s Attorney, Williston, ND 58802, for plaintiff and appellee.
Russell J. Myhre, Valley City, ND 58072, for defendant and appellant.
[¶ 1] Jesseaca Finneman appeals from criminal judgments entered after a jury found her guilty of: (1) possession of more than 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver; (2) unlawful possession of hashish; and (3) two counts of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Finneman argues she is entitled to a new trial because the jury verdict form for the charge of possession of more than 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver was confusing and misapplied the law. We reverse Finneman’s conviction for possession with intent to deliver.
[¶ 2] Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for a residence shared by Finneman and her roommate and seized illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia and cash in their residence. The State separately charged Finneman and her roommate with: (1) possession of more than 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver; (2) possession of THC oil; (3) possession of hashish; and (4) two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. On motion by the State, the prosecutions against each defendant were consolidated for a jury trial, and the charge for possession of THC oil against each defendant was dismissed before the case was submitted to the jury.
[¶ 3] At trial Finneman testified that she possessed all of the drugs and paraphernalia for her personal use, that she was not a drug dealer and that she did not intend to deliver or sell the marijuana to other persons. Finneman also testified her roommate was not involved with the drugs or paraphernalia and the cash was to pay rent for their residence. Finneman claimed she was not guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana. During discussions about final jury instructions the district court granted Finneman’s request to provide the jury with a lesser included instruction on possession of marijuana for the greater charge of possession of more than 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver. The jury verdict form in Finneman’s case included a black box preventing the jury from explicitly entering a not guilty verdict for possession with intent to deliver and provided:
"We, the Jury duly impaneled and sworn in the above entitled actions, do find the Defendant, Jesseaca Finneman,
?
[¶ 4] As relevant to the charge of possession of more than 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver and the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana, a jury instruction entitled "forms of verdict" provided:
[¶ 5] During jury deliberations, the jury asked the district court the following question about the verdict form:
"Why is number 1 blacked out on Finneman’s sheet paren/close paren, (not guilty), since she admitted to having more than 500g, is she automatically guilty?"
[¶ 6] After a discussion with counsel, the court provided the jury with the following answer:
[¶ 7] The jury resumed deliberations and subsequently informed the district court it had reached a verdict. After the court reviewed the verdict form for Finneman and noted it did not include verdicts for all the charges against her, the following colloquy occurred:
[¶ 8] The jury retired for further deliberations, and Finneman then moved for a mistrial on the ground that the jury was confused and did not understand the instructions. The court denied Finneman’s motion. The jury thereafter returned a completed verdict form, finding Finneman guilty of all four charges. The verdict form for Finneman’s roommate did not include a section for a finding on a lesser included offense for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and the jury found the roommate guilty of two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia and not guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of hashish.
[¶ 9] On appeal Finneman challenges only the conviction for possession of more than 500 grams of marijuana with intent to deliver. She argues she possessed the marijuana for her personal use and not with intent to deliver. She asserts the verdict form misinterpreted and misapplied the law about possession with intent to deliver and confused and misled the jury.
[¶ 10] The issues raised in this appeal involve the jury instructions and the verdict form. On appeal jury instructions are fully reviewable. State v. Wilson , 2004 ND 51, ¶ 11, 676 N.W.2d 98. Jury instructions must correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law and must not mislead or confuse the jury. State v. Jahner , 2003 ND 36, ¶ 13, 657 N.W.2d 266. We review jury instructions as a whole to determine whether they adequately and correctly inform the jury of the applicable law, even though part of the instructions standing alone may be insufficient or erroneous. State v. Barth , 2001 ND 201, ¶ 12, 637 N.W.2d 369. We will reverse a criminal conviction only if the instructions, as a whole, are erroneous, relate to a central subject in the case, and affect a substantial right of the defendant. Wilson , at ¶ 11.
[¶ 11] Possession of a controlled substance is a lesser included offense of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. State v. Holly , 2013 ND 94, ¶¶ 75-76, 833 N.W.2d 15. We have adopted the "acquittal first" procedure for a jury to transition from considering a charged greater offense to a lesser included offense. State v. Daulton , 518 N.W.2d 719, 720-23 (N.D. 1994). An "acquittal first" instruction "requires an acquittal of the offense charged before consideration of lesser-included offenses," and only after the jury has confronted and unanimously decided the defendant’s innocence as to the charged greater offense should the jury consider a lesser included offense. Id. at 722-23. See also State v. Huber , 555 N.W.2d 791, 797 n. 2 (N.D. 1996).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rolls
...the offense as charged" as "hard transition instruction" (emphasis and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Finneman, 2018 ND 203, ¶ 11, 916 N.W.2d 619 (describing instruction that "requires an acquittal of the offense charged before consideration of lesser-included offenses" as "acquittal f......
-
State v. Rolls
...the offense as charged" as "hard transition instruction" (emphasis and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Finneman, 2018 ND 203, ¶ 11, 916 N.W.2d 619 (describing instruction that "requires an acquittal of the offense charged before consideration of lesser-included offenses" as "acquittal f......
-
State v. Edwards
...error in a timely manner requires error that is plain or obvious and affects substantial rights. State v. Finneman , 2018 ND 203, ¶ 13, 916 N.W.2d 619 (citing Olander , 1998 ND 50, ¶¶ 13-14, 575 N.W.2d 658 ). An obvious error is a clear deviation from an applicable rule under current law. O......
- State v. Pickens