STATE v. NARVESON (2026)

[¶1] Nicholas Narveson appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder, terrorizing, and reckless endangerment. He argues the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and negligent homicide when it had instructed on self-defense. He also argues the court abused its discretion by admitting a jail call video depicting him in jail clothing.

[¶2] Neither party requested instructions on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter or negligent homicide. A district court need not include jury instructions that are not requested by a party. State v. Frey, 441 N.W.2d 668, 671 (N.D. 1989); State v. Mathre, 1999 ND 224, ¶¶ 8-9, 603 N.W.2d 173; see also State v. Tweed, 491 N.W.2d 412, 416 (N.D. 1992) (holding the district court was “under no compulsion, from Leidholm and its progeny, to instruct on negligent homicide” when the evidence did not support it). The court did not err by failing to give unrequested lesser included offenses instructions.

[¶3] The district court's decision to admit the jail call video was not an abuse of discretion. The court conducted a Rule 403 analysis on the record, drawing a reasoned distinction between a twenty-one-minute video showing the defendant in prison clothing and compelling a defendant to sit in prison clothing for the duration of a multiple-day trial.

[¶4] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Per Curiam.

[¶5] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese