STATE v. LITTLEBIRD (2024)

[¶1] Georgia Littlebird appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted her of aggravated assault. On appeal, Littlebird argues that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. She also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction because the State did not prove she acted with the requisite culpability due to her intoxication.

[¶2] Littlebird did not preserve the issue of the district court's failure to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication, because she objected to the inclusion of intoxication instructions at trial. When the district court asked Littlebird if she objected to the two voluntary intoxication instructions proposed by the State, Littlebird responded: “Correct.” It is clear on the face of the record that Littlebird affirmatively objected to the inclusion of an intoxication instruction, and as such, she waived the alleged instructional error. State v. Houle, 2022 ND 96, ¶ 7, 974 N.W.2d 401. After review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We summarily affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr