State v. Johnson

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that lack of criminal responsibility is an ordinary defense rather than an affirmative defense because it is not explicitly designated as an affirmative defense by statute. The trial court therefore erred by instructing the jury that Robert Johnson bore the burden of proving lack of criminal responsibility. The court treated the instructional error as obvious error affecting substantial rights, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Lack of criminal responsibility is an ordinary defense, not an affirmative defense, because North Dakota law does not explicitly designate it as an affirmative defense. When evidence is sufficient to raise the defense, the State must prove the nonexistence of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of the offense.
2. The trial court's instruction placing the burden of proving lack of criminal responsibility on Johnson was obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b), and Johnson was entitled to a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether lack of criminal responsibility under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-04.1-01(1) is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Whether instructing the jury that Johnson bore the burden of proving lack of criminal responsibility constituted obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b), despite the absence of a trial objection and appellate issue assignment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded