STATE v. COLEMAN, 906 N.W.2d 911 (2018)
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota
Number: inndco20180222655
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2018
Summary: Per Curiam . [ 1] Romez Michael Coleman, Jr., appeals from a criminal judgment for aggravated assault — domestic violence. Coleman argues the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict and the district court erred in allowing testimony about two physical objects that were subject to a stipulation and order restricting their admission into evidence. Sufficient evidence exists to sustain the criminal judgment, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admi
Summary: Per Curiam . [ 1] Romez Michael Coleman, Jr., appeals from a criminal judgment for aggravated assault — domestic violence. Coleman argues the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict and the district court erred in allowing testimony about two physical objects that were subject to a stipulation and order restricting their admission into evidence. Sufficient evidence exists to sustain the criminal judgment, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admit..
More
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Romez Michael Coleman, Jr., appeals from a criminal judgment for aggravated assault — domestic violence. Coleman argues the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict and the district court erred in allowing testimony about two physical objects that were subject to a stipulation and order restricting their admission into evidence. Sufficient evidence exists to sustain the criminal judgment, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the objects. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jon J. Jensen
Jerod E. Tufte
Source: Leagle
