State v. Dahl

Citations

• 982 N.W.2d 580
• 2022 ND 212

Syllabus

When the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged, this Court merely reviews the record to determine if there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction. Constructive possession is proven when the evidence establishes that the accused had the power and capability to exercise dominion and control over the controlled substance or paraphernalia. When a defendant fails to preserve a claim of insufficient evidence, the Court may review for obvious error, which is a narrow exception to the rule that issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Although the Court may decline review of forfeited errors when the appellant fails to argue the obvious error standard, the Court is not foreclosed from considering such errors. An error is obvious when it is a clear deviation from an applicable rule under current law. Drug paraphernalia used, or possessed with intent to be used, to store a controlled substance does not satisfy the felony use element under N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-03(1). If even a properly instructed jury would have had insufficient evidence on which it could have convicted the defendant, the required remedy upon a conclusion there was insufficient evidence presented at trial is to enter a judgment of acquittal.