State v. Sapa

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Michael Sapa’s conviction for gross sexual imposition involving a victim under fifteen. The court held that his appeal from the amended judgment incorporating restitution was timely and that the district court properly excluded evidence concerning Sapa’s belief about the victim’s age because the offense is one of strict liability. The court also rejected his arguments that the relevant statutes create confusing definitions of minors and that the strict-liability provision is unconstitutionally vague.

Holdings

1. An appeal from an amended criminal judgment incorporating restitution is timely when filed within thirty days after entry of that amended judgment, at least where the amended judgment does not merely deprive the defendant of the opportunity to appeal.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of Sapa's belief or perception concerning the victim's age because gross sexual imposition involving a child under fifteen is a strict-liability offense and mistake of age is not a defense.
3. The differing age provisions in N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-01 and 14-10-01 do not create an impermissible conflict or require reversal of Sapa's conviction.
4. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(1) is not unconstitutionally vague.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sapa's appeal from the amended judgment incorporating restitution was timely.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning Sapa's knowledge or belief about the victim's age.
3. Whether N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-01 and 14-10-01 create competing definitions of minors that render the statutory scheme confusing or arbitrary.
4. Whether N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01(1) is unconstitutionally vague because it refers to both age fifteen and age fourteen.

Disposition

affirmed