State v. Woehlhoff
Decision Date | 12 April 1994 |
Docket Number | Cr. N |
Citation | 515 N.W.2d 192 |
Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Courtney WOEHLHOFF, Defendant and Appellant. o. 930137CA. |
Court | North Dakota Court of Appeals |
Francis C. Rohrich (argued), State's Atty., Linton, for defendant and appellant.
Courtney Woehlhoff, pro se.
JON R. KERIAN, Surrogate Judge.
Courtney Woehlhoff appealed from a judgment of conviction for driving with a suspended license in violation of Section 39-06-42, N.D.C.C., a class B misdemeanor. We affirm.
Woehlhoff argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to prove certain allegations in the complaint beyond a reasonable doubt. The North Dakota Supreme Court in State v. Ensz, 503 N.W.2d 236, 238 (N.D.1993), summarized the procedure for review when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal:
The complaint charged Woehlhoff as follows:
Woehlhoff argues that "308 S. 1st Street" is the location of the apartment where he resides and that the evidence did not prove he was driving at that particular location. 1 Woehlhoff also asserts that no evidence was presented to the jury that the reason his license was previously revoked was that he refused to submit to a blood alcohol test.
Technicalities of criminal pleadings have been abolished, and to sufficiently charge an offense a complaint must simply state in plain ordinary language the essential elements of the offense. City of Minot v. Bjelland, 452 N.W.2d 348 (N.D.1990). If words appear in an information or complaint which, if stricken, do not cause omission of any of the essential elements of the offense, those words may be treated as surplusage and wholly disregarded. State v. Woehlhoff, 473 N.W.2d 446 (N.D.1991).
The essential elements of Section 39-06-42, N.D.C.C., are that, (1) the person charged drove a motor vehicle in this state on a highway or on a public or private area to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use, and (2) when the person drove, that person's privilege to drive was suspended or revoked. State v. Grenz, 437 N.W.2d 851 (N.D.1989). To prove this offense it was unnecessary for the prosecution to prove the reason that Woehlhoff's driving privileges were previously revoked or suspended. Those words are merely surplusage in the complaint and can be disregarded. 2 Also, to prove this offense it is only necessary to show that the person was driving "in this state." The allegation in the complaint that Woehlhoff was driving "at 308 S. 1st Street" is merely surplusage and can be disregarded.
The record shows that the trial court discussed the elements of the offense with Woehlhoff prior to the trial, and the instructions submitted to the jury stated that the essential elements to convict were that Woehlhoff "drove a motor vehicle, on a highway or on public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use in this state" and that "at the time he so drove, his license or privilege to do so was suspended or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Michel
...any of the essential elements of the offense, those words may be treated as surplusage and wholly disregarded." State v. Woehlhoff , 515 N.W.2d 192, 194 (N.D. Ct. App. 1994). Because the identity of the victim is not an element of theft, we conclude that reference to Northwest Tire in the i......
-
State v. Johnson
...(N.D.1995). In Woehlhoff at 567-68 (quoting NDCC 29-32.1-12(2)), relying on a prior opinion of the Court of Appeals, State v. Woehlhoff, 515 N.W.2d 192 (N.D.App.1994), we found all of the contentions raised on appeal had been decided before, so that "the trial court's summary denial of post......
-
State v. Ulmer, No. 990230
...a motor vehicle on a public way, and (2) while driving, the defendant's privilege to drive was suspended or revoked. State v. Woehlhoff, 515 N.W.2d 192, 194 (Ct.App.1994). While a person might commit both offenses with a single course of conduct, these crimes, nevertheless, involve separate......
-
Woehlhoff v. State, 940379
...Woehlhoff chose to appeal without assistance of counsel. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. State v. Woehlhoff, 515 N.W.2d 192 (N.D.Ct.App.1994). Woehlhoff petitioned for review of the affirmance by this court, but we denied review. A few months later, Woehlhoff petitioned......