State v. Soucy
Decision Date | 02 June 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 20190329,20190329 |
Citation | 943 N.W.2d 755 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Tara Lynn SOUCY, Defendant and Appellant |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Chase R. Lingle, Assistant State’s Attorney, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Tara Soucy appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found her guilty of child neglect. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to take judicial notice. We affirm the conviction and remand to the court to correct the judgment to accurately reflect the statutory citation for child neglect.
[¶2] In June 2019, Soucy was charged with two counts of class C felony child neglect. Count 1 alleged on May 28, 2019, Soucy willfully failed to provide proper parental care or control of her children, when T.S. and A.S., who were under 3 years old, were found wandering away from home without any clothes on. Count 2 alleged on May 29, 2019, Soucy willfully failed to provide proper parental care or control of her child, when T.S. was walking unattended on a busy thoroughfare.
[¶3] A jury trial was held on October 22, 2019. At trial the officer who responded to the incident on May 29, 2019, testified. On cross-examination, Soucy attempted to bring in evidence of the conviction of the children’s father, Avalino Lopez, on a related charge. The jury found Soucy not guilty of child neglect for the May 28, 2019 incident as set forth in Count 1, and found her guilty of child neglect for the May 29, 2019 incident as set forth in Count 2.
[¶4] On appeal, Soucy argues the district court erred by refusing to take judicial notice of a related conviction of the children’s father. On appeal, we review the court’s decision to take judicial notice of evidence presented under an abuse of discretion standard. Opp v. Matzke , 1997 ND 32, ¶ 9, 559 N.W.2d 837. "A district court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, unconscionable, or capricious manner, or if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law." State v. Newark , 2017 ND 209, ¶ 6, 900 N.W.2d 807.
[¶5] Judicial notice is governed by N.D.R.Ev. 201, which states:
[¶6] At trial, counsel elicited testimony and attempted to introduce evidence of a related conviction of the children’s father:
[¶7] A district court has discretion to take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute under N.D.R.Ev. 201(b), if the evidence meets the criteria set forth in Rule 201(b)(1) or (2). Under N.D.R.Ev. 201(c)(2), a court must take notice if a party requests it and supplies the court with the necessary information. Under N.D.R.Ev. 201(d), the court may take notice at any stage of the proceeding. Even assuming the defense attorney’s question "[c]an you take judicial notice?" was an adequate request to take judicial notice, the defense did not offer the evidence or present the court with any further information about the charge. The court did not refuse to take judicial notice, rather, the court stated the evidence may be presented at a later point. No further request to take judicial notice of the conviction was made during trial. A court has broad discretion when deciding evidentiary matters. Davis v. Killu , 2006 ND 32, ¶ 6, 710 N.W.2d 118. The court here was not provided with the necessary information mandating the taking of judicial notice under N.D.R.Ev. 201(c). The court did not abuse its discretion by declining to take judicial notice under the facts of this case.
[¶8] While not an issue raised on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Orwig v. Orwig
...a district court's decision to take judicial notice of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Soucy , 2020 ND 119, ¶ 4, 943 N.W.2d 755 ; Opp v. Matzke , 1997 ND 32, ¶ 9, 559 N.W.2d 837. A court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscion......
-
State v. Gardner
...child neglect from N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22 to N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22.1. 2015 N.D. Sess. Laws ch. 127, § 3; see State v. Soucy, 2020 ND 119, ¶ 8, 943 N.W.2d 755. This amendment changed the following language: 1. Except as provided in subsection 2 or 3, a parent, family or household member, guardian......