# State v. Carpenter

> North Dakota Supreme Court · December 19, 1980 · 301 N.W.2d 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701355

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Bruce CARPENTER, Defendant and Appellee
- **Court:** North Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 19, 1980
- **Citations:** 301 N.W.2d 106; 16 A.L.R. 4th 622; 1980 N.D. LEXIS 326
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pederson
- **Judges:** Paulson, Pederson, Erickstad, Sand, Vande Walle
- **Cited by:** 44 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701355

## Opinion text

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
This case was dismissed upon motion, so the question of how to properly instruct the *112 jury on burden of proof so as to protect Carpenter’s rights has never been confronted. From the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and the Memorandum Opinion, it appears that the trial court assumed that unconstitutional instructions would have to be given. The majority opinion apparently assumes the same. I agree that Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), would have to be kept in mind.
The heavy artillery required for a successful attack on the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature is missing from this case. See So. Valley Grain Dealers v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs of Richland County, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977).
The dismissal ought to be set aside and the case remanded so that Carpenter can be given a fair trial with his rights under the federal and state constitutions protected.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701355. Public record. Not legal advice.