State v. Haney
| Docket Number | 20220366,20220367 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 ND 227 |
| Parties | State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Demetris Haney, Defendant and Appellant |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable William A. Herauf, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Amanda R. Engelstad, State's Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Demetris Haney appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and terrorizing. We conclude the district court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and did not deny his right to a public trial. We affirm.
[¶2] On January 1, 2022, Haney and three other individuals were involved in a shooting in a bar's parking lot in Dickinson. The State charged Haney with reckless endangerment and terrorizing, in addition to conspiracy to commit murder and two counts of attempted murder. The State subsequently moved to dismiss the conspiracy charge, which the district court granted. In August 2022, the court held a three-day jury trial on the remaining four counts.
[¶3] Haney and his wife went to the bar on New Year's Eve. While at the bar, two acquaintances of Haney-Jamaal Brown and Alexander Aseph-entered the bar and became upset with another individual. Brown and Aseph were seen tucking guns into their waistbands before entering the bar, getting into a disagreement in the bar, and brandishing their guns. Brown and Aseph left the bar through the main exit. Haney testified he told his wife they were leaving and left from a different exit into the parking lot.
[¶4] At trial, the State offered photographs and surveillance videos into evidence and played videos for the jury, which included the shooting in the parking lot. The investigating detective testified regarding the photographs and videos stating Haney raised his firearm towards Brown before Aseph and Brown raised any weapons:
So prior to Brown getting in his vehicle, [Haney] fires multiple rounds at Brown. Brown drops rapidly. And then Aseph and Brown, I believe they returned fire towards [Haney]. They eventually entered the Jeep and then the Jeep attempts to leave. The other individual that we saw, [Dontaye] Mayfield he goes inside his white Chevy truck right there, and he retrieves a firearm. And then as the Jeep is leaving, you can see Mayfield and [Haney] running towards the Jeep and firing at the Jeep as it leaves the area.
The detective testified, in his opinion, Haney was the first person to shoot. The detective testified officers collected twenty-five shell casings from the scene, with an additional four casings later found on the Jeep used by Aseph and Brown. Haney testified when he went out to his car, Brown and Aseph began shooting at him and he returned fire with a gun he grabbed out of his car, shooting five rounds towards Brown. Haney further testified he fired until his gun was empty and did not shoot at the Jeep as it left the parking lot.
[¶5] After the State rested its case, Haney moved the district court under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 for a judgment of acquittal on all four counts. The court denied his motion. The jury found Haney not guilty of the attempted murder counts, but found him guilty of two counts of the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault and guilty of reckless endangerment and terrorizing. The jury also found Haney was a dangerous special offender. In December 2022, the court sentenced Haney, and the clerk entered a criminal judgment.
[¶6] Haney argues the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 on the terrorizing charge.
[¶7] "To grant a motion for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, a trial court must find the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of the offenses charged." State v. Yoney, 2020 ND 118, ¶ 19, 943 N.W.2d 791 (quoting State v. Norton, 2019 ND 191, ¶ 14, 930 N.W.2d 635). "To successfully challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permits no reasonable inference of guilt." State v. Bear, 2015 ND 36 ¶ 7, 859 N.W.2d 595 (quoting State v. Herzig 2012 ND 247, ¶ 12, 825 N.W.2d 235). We will assume the jury believed all evidence supporting a guilty verdict and disbelieved any contrary evidence. Yoney, at ¶ 19. We do not reweigh conflicting evidence or judge the witnesses' credibility. State v. Noble, 2023 ND 119, ¶ 4, 992 N.W.2d 518.
[¶8] Circumstantial evidence alone may justify a conviction when "the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Fleck, 2022 ND 49, ¶ 9, 971 N.W.2d 387 (quoting State v. Spillum, 2021 ND 25, ¶ 6, 954 N.W.2d 673). "A verdict based on circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts." Id. (quoting Spillum, at ¶ 6).
[¶9] Section 12.1-17-04(1), N.D.C.C., defines the crime of terrorizing and provides, in relevant part:
A person is guilty of a class C felony if, with intent to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety . . . or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, disruption, or inconvenience, the person . . . [t]hreatens to commit any crime of violence or act dangerous to human life[.]
[¶10] To convict under this section, the State must prove: "(1) the defendant intended to cause another person to fear for his or another person's safety or acted with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such fear, and (2) the defendant made a threat to commit a 'crime of violence or act dangerous to human life.'" State v. Johnson, 2021 ND 161, ¶ 6, 964 N.W.2d 500 (quoting State v. Brossart, 2015 ND 1, ¶ 19, 858 N.W.2d 275). "A threat could be in words, verbal or written; actions; gestures; suggestive innuendo; or any other form of communication." Yoney, 2020 ND 118, ¶ 20 (quoting State v. Laib, 2005 ND 191, ¶ 10, 705 N.W.2d 815).
[¶11] In this case, the district court instructed the jury on the essential elements for terrorizing, as follows:
The jury instructions defined the words "[t]hreat or [t]hreatened" as "a communication, verbal or nonverbal, where the actor means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals; the threat must be considered from the perspective of a reasonable person in the recipient's position."
[¶12] In moving for a judgment of acquittal on the terrorizing count, Haney argued the evidence was "totally lacking" he made any "concrete threats" toward Brown, Aseph, or "anyone else in particular." In denying his motion, the district court explained,
[¶13] Haney argues the State failed to prove the terrorizing charge because he did not "threaten" to commit any violent crime or a dangerous act. He asserts no evidence shows he made a threatening statement or brandished his gun or another weapon and no evidence shows he had the specific intent to place anyone in fear for their safety. The State responds the agreed-upon jury instructions provide the "threat" did not have to be a verbal threat and firing his gun five times at another individual or individuals is a "threat" defined by the jury instructions.
[¶14] "A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor." Bear, 2015 ND 36, ¶ 14 (quoting State v. Knowels, 2003 ND 180, ¶ 6, 671 N.W.2d 816). "A jury may find a defendant guilty even though evidence exists which, if believed, could lead to a verdict of not guilty." State v. Dahl, 2022 ND 212, ¶ 5, 982 N.W.2d 580 (quoting State v. Nakvinda, 2011 ND 217, ¶ 12, 807 N.W.2d 204).
[¶15] Here, in convicting Haney, the jury found Haney had not acted in selfdefense. There is evidence in the record showing Haney raised his gun and fired multiple times at one or more individuals. From the perspective of a reasonable person, someone raising his gun towards an individual and firing multiple times at the individual could constitute a nonverbal threat to those present at the scene. Moreover, the jury could construe the evidence of Haney's conduct in exchanging gunfire with Brown and Aseph as establishing Haney's intent to place another in fear for that person's safety or, at least, acting in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.
[¶16] Based on the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial