State v. Pemberton
| Decision Date | 27 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 20180414 & 20180415,s. 20180414 & 20180415 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Lorenzo Traveras PEMBERTON, Defendant and Appellant |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Brittney A. Bornemann, Assistant State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Scott O. Diamond, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Lorenzo Traveras Pemberton appeals from a district court’s criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, interference with an emergency call, felonious restraint, attempted murder, and child neglect. Pemberton argues the district court erred in granting the State’s motion to amend the criminal information one week before trial, the jury was provided improper instructions, the jury was provided with an improper verdict form, and the district court failed to properly admonish the jury before each break in the trial proceedings. We affirm.
[¶2] Pemberton was part of an incident involving his girlfriend, which occurred during the night of February 22 and extended into February 23, 2018. During the incident, Pemberton and the victim’s argument escalated and the victim eventually placed a 911 emergency call. Following the call, the argument became physical and Pemberton is alleged to have struck the victim and pushed her to the ground. While they were struggling on the ground, the victim saw a screwdriver on the floor, picked it up, and is alleged to have struck Pemberton with the screwdriver. Pemberton obtained control of the screwdriver from the victim and struck her with it. Eventually law enforcement arrived at the scene, and Pemberton was taken into custody and placed under arrest.
[¶3] Pemberton was initially charged with aggravated assault, interference with an emergency call, and felonious restraint. On March 15, 2018, the State added charges of attempted murder and child neglect in a separate criminal file. The criminal information containing the allegation of attempted murder alleged Pemberton "intentionally engaged in conduct which, in fact, constituted a step towards the commission of the crime of murder, when the Defendant attempted to cause the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." The language used for the attempted murder charge mirrored the language used to define murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b).
[¶4] In Dominguez v. State , this Court held attempted murder under N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b), is not a cognizable offense. 2013 ND 249, ¶ 22, 840 N.W.2d 596. See also Coppage v. State , 2014 ND 42, ¶¶ 27-28, 843 N.W.2d 291. In Dominguez , the defendant argued an individual cannot have the specific intent to commit the general intent crime of murder under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference of human life. Dominguez , at ¶ 9. Because the attempt statute requires the specific intent to complete the underlying crime, but extreme indifference murder results in an unintentional death, this Court held there is an inconsistency in the elements of the two crimes that is "logically and legally impossible to rectify." Id. at ¶ 13. Attempted murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-06-01, using the definition of murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b), is not a cognizable offense. Id. at ¶ 22.
[¶5] On May 7, 2018, the district court conducted a preliminary hearing on the felony charges. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found there was probable cause to support all of the charges, including the attempted murder charge.
[¶6] On August 22, 2018, one week prior to the trial, the State filed a motion to amend the criminal information. The State sought to amend the charge of attempted murder by striking the language alleging "the Defendant attempted to cause the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life," and replacing it with the allegation that, "the Defendant attempted to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of another human being." The district court allowed the State’s requested amendment. One day before the trial began, the State filed a single amended criminal information alleging the five charges, including the amended attempted murder charge.
[¶7] Pemberton was found guilty of the five charges after a jury trial. On appeal, Pemberton argues the district court committed reversible error by: (1) finding probable cause existed for the attempted murder charge at the preliminary hearing, (2) allowing the State to add additional criminal charges the day before the jury trial, (3) giving confusing and unreliable jury instructions, (4) providing the jury with an improper verdict form, and (5) failing to properly admonish the jury, as required by N.D.C.C. § 29-21-28.
[¶8] Pemberton concedes none of the issues he has raised on appeal were the subject of an objection in the district court, and the appropriate standard of review for the issues on appeal is a review for obvious error. This Court has previously noted that "issues not raised at trial will not be addressed on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b)." State v. Lott , 2019 ND 18, ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 428. This Court’s obvious error standard is well established:
To establish obvious error, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate plain error which affected his substantial rights. To constitute obvious error, the error must be a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law. There is no obvious error when an applicable rule of law is not clearly established.
Id. (quoting State v. Tresenriter , 2012 ND 240, ¶ 12, 823 N.W.2d 774 ).
[¶9] When asserting a claim of obvious error, a defendant must show: (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights. State v. Wangstad , 2018 ND 217, ¶ 14, 917 N.W.2d 515. "We exercise our power to consider obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice." State v. Glass , 2000 ND 212, ¶ 4, 620 N.W.2d 146 (internal quotation marks omitted). "When analyzing obvious error, we examine the entire record for the probable effect of the alleged error in light of all the evidence." Wangstad , at ¶ 14. This Court has also noted the following regarding obvious error:
Even if the defendant meets his burden of establishing obvious error affecting substantial rights, the determination whether to correct the error lies within the discretion of the appellate court, and the court should exercise that discretion only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. An alleged error does not constitute obvious error unless there is a clear deviation from an applicable legal rule under current law.
State v. Patterson , 2014 ND 193, ¶ 4, 855 N.W.2d 113 (citations omitted).
[¶10] Pemberton argues the district court finding probable cause existed for the original attempted murder charge at the preliminary hearing was reversible error. His argument begins with a reference to our prior holding in Dominguez that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-06-01, using the definition of murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b), is not a cognizable offense. Dominguez , 2013 ND 249, ¶ 22, 840 N.W.2d 596. He concludes that finding probable cause for a non-cognizable offense is not legally possible.
[¶11] We have previously held that "a district court’s decision at a preliminary hearing that probable cause existed to bind a defendant over for trial is rendered moot once the trial is held." State v. Montplaisir , 2015 ND 237, ¶ 16, 869 N.W.2d 435. Pemberton was found guilty at trial, and the district court’s determination on probable cause made at the preliminary hearing is not appropriate for review on appeal. Therefore, we need not address Pemberton’s argument alleging the district court erred in finding probable cause existed to bind him over for trial.
[¶12] Pemberton argues the district court’s decision to grant the State’s request to amend the attempted murder charge immediately prior to trial is obvious error. An amendment of a criminal information is governed by N.D.R.Crim.P. 7(e), which reads as follows: "Unless an additional or different offense is charged or a substantial right of the defendant is prejudiced, the court may permit an information to be amended at any time before the verdict or finding." This Court reviews a district court’s decision to allow an information to be amended for an abuse of discretion. State v. Carlson , 2016 ND 130, ¶ 6, 881 N.W.2d 649. "A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law." Id.
[¶13] The attempted murder offense charged under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b) in the initial information and the attempted murder offense charged under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) in the amended information are different. Murder using the definition of murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(b) requires proof of "an unintentional death from behavior manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life." State v. Borner , 2013 ND 141, ¶ 18, 836 N.W.2d 383. In contrast, attempted murder using the definition of murder under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(a) requires proof of intentionally or knowingly attempting to cause a death. Id. at ¶¶ 19-20. The culpability elements are different for the two charges.
[¶14] The amendment, which modified the elements, resulted in Pemberton being charged with a different offense. Amendment of an information to charge a different offense is contrary to N.D.R.Crim.P. 7(e) and a misapplication of law. The district court abused its discretion by allowing the amendment.
[¶15] Although the district court abused its discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martinez
...review this forfeited error only for obvious error. Morales , 2019 ND 206, ¶ 24, 932 N.W.2d 106 ; State v. Pemberton , 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8, 930 N.W.2d 125. Obvious error requires the defendant to demonstrate: "(1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) the error affects the defendant's substantial ......
-
State v. Morales
...preserve the issue with a timely objection, we review this forfeited error only for obvious error. State v. Pemberton , 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8, 930 N.W.2d 125 ; Watkins , 2017 ND 165, ¶ 12, 898 N.W.2d 442. To establish obvious error, the defendant must demonstrate (1) an error, (2) that was plain......
-
State v. Wickham
...appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).’ " State v. Pemberton , 2019 ND 157, ¶ 8, 930 N.W.2d 125 (citing State v. Lott , 2019 ND 18, ¶ 8, 921 N.W.2d 428 ). The obvious error standard is well established:"To establish obvious error, the ......
-
Pemberton v. State
...not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.I[¶2] We described the evidence presented to the jury in State v. Pemberton , 2019 ND 157, ¶¶ 2-7, 930 N.W.2d 125, and we will not repeat those facts here except as necessary to assist in resolving the issues raised in this appeal.[¶3] In 2018, Pembert......