State v. Sorenson; State v. Nichols, 2009 ND 147

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the murder convictions of Aron Wesley Nichols and the accomplice-to-murder convictions of Tamara Sorenson arising from the deaths of Donald and Alice Willey. The court held that recorded jail telephone conversations were non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, the warrantless search of Nichols's discarded trash did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the district court properly handled the requested extreme-emotional-disturbance instruction and polygraph evidence. The court concluded that Sorenson's due process rights were not violated.

Holdings

1. Recorded statements made by Sorenson to Nichols and family members were non-testimonial, so their admission without a prior opportunity for cross-examination did not violate Nichols's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
2. Extreme emotional disturbance is a mitigating circumstance, not a defense or element of murder under North Dakota law; therefore, the State was not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the nonexistence of extreme emotional disturbance, and the district court did not err in refusing Nichols's requested burden-of-proof instruction.
3. A person has no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in trash placed near a public street for ordinary collection and abandonment to the trash collector; the warrantless search of Nichols's trash therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment or North Dakota Constitution.
4. Sorenson's due process rights were not violated when the district court permitted the State's polygraph expert to testify at a motion hearing but did not hear live testimony from Sorenson's experts.
5. Substantial evidence supported Sorenson's convictions for accomplice to murder because the evidence permitted the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that, with intent that the murders be committed, she induced and aided Nichols.

Questions Presented

1. Whether admission of recorded telephone conversations between Nichols, Sorenson, and family members violated Nichols's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
2. Whether the district court improperly refused to instruct the jury that the nonexistence of extreme emotional disturbance was an element of murder that the State had to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the warrantless search of Nichols and Sorenson's trash violated the Fourth Amendment or North Dakota Constitution because the trash was within the residence's curtilage and Nichols had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
4. Whether Sorenson's due process rights were violated when the district court allowed the State's polygraph expert to testify at a hearing without permitting her experts to testify in person.
5. Whether sufficient evidence supported Sorenson's convictions for accomplice to murder.

Disposition

affirmed