State v. Romero

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Miguel Humberto Medina Romero’s convictions for murder, unlawful possession or manufacture of marijuana, and unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The court held that the district court properly denied a request for a jury view of the crime scene, correctly instructed the jury on self-defense, and properly denied a motion for judgment of acquittal based on sufficiency of the evidence. The court also held that remaining inaudible portions of the jury-selection transcript did not establish reversible error or prejudice.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Romero's request for a jury view because the photographs, testimony, measurements, and scale drawing adequately represented the scene and a view would serve no useful purpose in illustrating the testimony.
2. The district court did not err by using the phrase "great bodily injury" in the self-defense instruction rather than substituting "serious bodily injury" or separately defining "great bodily injury."
3. The evidence was sufficient to support Romero's conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and the district court properly denied his N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.
4. Romero failed to establish reversible error based on the remaining indiscernible portions of the jury-selection transcript because he identified no specific jury-selection issue, demonstrated no prejudice, and did not show that his substantial rights were affected.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Romero's request for the jury to view the crime scene.
2. Whether the district court committed reversible error by giving a self-defense instruction using the phrase "great bodily injury" without changing it to "serious bodily injury" or separately defining the phrase.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Romero's conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
4. Whether the remaining inaudible or indiscernible portions of the jury-selection transcript required corrective action or a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed