State v. Davis

Citations

• 970 N.W.2d 201
• 2022 ND 30

Syllabus

Constitutional forfeiture doctrine recognized by adopting the hearsay exception under N.D.R.Ev. 804(b)(6). Forfeiture by wrongdoing requires the State to prove (1) that the declarant-witness is unavailable (2) that the defendant engaged in wrongful conduct (3) that the wrongful conduct procured the unavailability of the witness and (4) that the defendant intended to procure the unavailability of the witness. Forfeiture by wrongdoing was properly applied where the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant murdered victim with intent to prevent testimony at criminal proceedings. The State is not required to prove defendant intended to prevent victim from testifying in the same case in which testimony was offered. Intent to prevent testimony in foreseeable proceeding or investigation is sufficient. A sentence is illegal if it is not authorized by the judgment of conviction, and a district court must abide by the terms of the judgment when amending the judgment to include restitution.