State v. Rosencranz

• Decision Date: 21 June 1918
• Citation: State v. Rosencranz, 40 N.D. 93, 168 N.W. 650 (N.D. 1918)
• Parties: STATE v. ROSENCRANZ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

40 N.D. 93

168 N.W. 650

STATE

v.ROSENCRANZ.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

June 21, 1918.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a criminal prosecution, in which the defendant was found guilty of the crime of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, it is held that no error was committed in bringing the action to trial before a special panel of petit jurors regularly summoned by the judge of the district court, in accordance with section 815, Compiled Laws of 1913; the regular panel having been discharged at the conclusion of the regular session of the term.

Evidence as to the condition of a wheat field, near the highway upon which an assault was committed, on the day after the assault, is held properly admissible; it appearing that the defendant and his accomplices emerged from the wheat field prior to making the assault.

Under section 9218, Compiled Laws of 1913, which provides that “all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, * * * are principals in any crime so committed,” a verdict finding the defendant guilty of an assault with a dangerous weapon is held to be proper, where it appears that he aided and abetted his accomplices, who used the dangerous weapon.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; C. W. Buttz, Judge.

Hobart Rosencranz was convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm, and he appeals. Affirmed.D. J. O'Connell, of Towner, for appellant. J. H. Ulsrud, State's Atty., of Towner, and F. T. Cuthbert, of Devils Lake, for the State.

BIRDZELL, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Ramsey county, entered upon the verdict of a jury which found the defendant guilty “of the crime of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm without a justifiable or excusable reason.” It appears that the assault of which the defendant was convicted was committed on one Halvor Ekre under the following circumstances: Ekre lived at Denbigh, N. D., and upon the evening of the date of the alleged assault, July 11th, was en route to his home in an automobile with his family. As they rode along the highway leading toward their home, their car struck some obstacle, and about the same time some shots were heard. Ekre promptly stopped the car, and as he did so the defendant and his son, Martin, were seen coming from the wheat field on the right-hand side of the road, and another son, Rance, from the wheat field on the left side. It appears that the defendant approached the car, seized Ekre about the head, struck him several blows with his fist, and pulled him out of the car. It further appears that Martin Rosencranz struck Ekre over the head with a club or ball bat, rendering him unconscious.

[1] The first assignment of error argued by the appellant is that the court erred in denying the defendant's challenge to the panel of jurors. It appears that the regular jury panel which had been called for the term had been discharged by the court and an entire new panel ordered. It seems that prior to the convening of the regular November term of the court a petit jury had been regularly called, and that the court remained in session for a period of about three weeks, trying cases with the aid of the jury so impaneled. Sufficient reasons existed for the nonattendance of six of the panel, and six more were excused from service by the court. After the somewhat protracted session of the November term, it became necessary to adjourn the term to a date in January. Upon adjournment, the trial court discharged the jury and issued an...