A criminal judgment entered after the trial court found the defendant guilty of disorderly conduct is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Joshua David Johansen, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20220046
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Wade L. Webb, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Katie M. Nechiporenko and Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State’s
Attorneys, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Scott O. Diamond, Fargo, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
State v. Johansen
No. 20220046
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Joshua Johansen appeals from a criminal judgment entered after the
trial court found him guilty of disorderly conduct. Johansen argues the
evidence was insufficient to sustain the trial court’s verdict. Specifically, he
alleges that because the victim’s account of the altercation was unreliable and
“could not be believed,” her testimony provided an insufficient basis for a
rational factfinder to find Johansen guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After
hearing conflicting testimony from the defendant and victim at trial, the court
weighed the testimony and found some of the victim’s testimony credible and
some not credible. “Conflicts in testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance,
as this Court has recognized the district court is in a superior position to assess
credibility of witnesses and weigh the evidence.” Isxaaq v. State,
. Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the verdict, we conclude substantial evidence exists that could allow a
factfinder to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction. We summarily
affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
1
