STATE v. LANDEN (2026)

[¶1] Michael Landen appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of terrorizing. Landen argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a terrorizing conviction.

[¶2] Evidence presented at trial included a recording of the 911 call and body camera footage of the incident giving rise to the terrorizing charge. The responding officer, victim, and victim's brother were all present at the incident and testified at trial about Landen's conduct during the incident. The victim also testified to being fearful as a result of Landen's conduct during the incident. At trial, Landen moved under Rule 29, N.D.R.Crim.P., for a judgment of acquittal. The district court denied the motion. After reviewing the record, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. See State v. Haney, 2023 ND 227, ¶ 7, 998 N.W.2d 817 (stating the defendant must show the evidence permits no reasonable inference of guilt and we do not reweigh conflicting evidence or judge witness credibility). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Per Curiam.

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