IN THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2025 ND 108
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Hope Marie Landsberger, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20240255
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.
Robert N. Togni, Assistant’s State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and
appellee.
Steven J. Fischer, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
State v. Landsberger
No. 20240255
Crothers, Justice.
[¶1] Hope Marie Landsberger appeals from a district court judgment finding
her guilty of providing false information to law enforcement. She argues the
district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the essential elements of the
charged offense. We affirm.
I
[¶2] Landsberger and Nathan Vetter share custody of their infant child. In
October 2023, an officer met with Landsberger at a hospital emergency room
when she reported Vetter for possible child neglect. She claimed Vetter returned
their child to her with a mouth injury and refused to explain how it occurred.
The officer spoke with Vetter who provided a recording of the exchange.
Landsberger alleges she repeatedly asked Vetter how the injury occurred,
however, the recording showed Landsberger did not speak to Vetter during the
exchange. Vetter also showed the officer a message he sent to Landsberger
explaining a different incident involving their child, to which Landsberger
replied “got it.” The officer stated in the probable cause affidavit Landsberger’s
report “materially misled law enforcement to investigate an issue that was not
present” and that Landsberger has been filing police reports against Vetter since
June 2023. Each report has been deemed unfounded due to lack of supporting
evidence and Landsberger providing false statements.
[¶3] Landsberger was charged with willfully giving false information to a law
enforcement officer in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-03(1). A jury trial was held
and Landsberger was found guilty. Landsberger timely appeals.
II
[¶4] Landsberger argues the district court erred by providing jury instructions
that did not adequately instruct on the essential elements of the offense. She
claims the instructions lacked specificity as required by law.
1
“Jury instructions are fully reviewable on appeal. This Court
reviews jury instructions as a whole and determines whether
they correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable
law, even though part of the instructions standing alone may be
insufficient or erroneous. Reversal is appropriate only if the
instructions, as a whole, are erroneous, relate to a central subject
in the case, and affect a substantial right of the accused.”
State v. Landrus, 2019 ND 162, ¶ 7,
930 N.W.2d 176 (cleaned up).
[¶5] The purpose of jury instructions are to:
“correctly and adequately advise the jury of the applicable law. Jury
instructions must not be misleading or confusing. We review the
instructions as a whole to determine whether they correctly and
adequately advise the jury of the applicable law even if part of the
instruction standing alone may be insufficient or erroneous. We will
only reverse a conviction based on an improper jury instruction if
the instruction relates to a central subject in the case and affects a
substantial right of the defendant.”
State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44, ¶ 6,
971 N.W.2d 811 (cleaned up).
[¶6] The district court provided the following jury instructions:
“FALSE INFORMATION OR REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER
A person who willfully gives false information or a false
report to a law enforcement officer which that person knows to be
false, and the information or report may interfere with an
investigation or may materially mislead a law enforcement officer is
guilty of False Information or Report to Law Enforcement Officer.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE
The State’s burden of proof is satisfied if the evidence shows,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the following essential elements:
1) On or about October 15, 2023, in Burleigh County, North
Dakota;
2) the Defendant, Hope Marie Landsberger,
2
3) willfully gave false information to a law enforcement
officer,
4) She knew the information to be false,
5) The information may have interfered with an investigation
or may have materially misled a law enforcement officer.”
[¶7] Here, Landsberger requested the district court modify the jury instructions
to require a finding that “the defendant provided Bismarck police officers with
false information the defendant knew to be false that materially misled officers
in the course of a child neglect investigation.” Landsberger argued that the
instructions should match the charging documents in the case, and that the
requested changes to the court’s proposed instructions were required to comply
with State v. Houkom, 2021 ND 223,
967 N.W.2d 801.
[¶8] The district court denied Landsberger’s request by concluding, “if I
granted your request, then an element of the crime would be that she did
interfere and that’s not what the statute requires, only may have interfered with
an investigation or may have materially misled a law enforcement officer.” We
agree with the district court judge’s ruling.
[¶9] The district court’s jury instructions specify the date, location, and all
elements of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-03(1). Landsberger’s requested instruction would
have added elements to the offense that the statute does not contain. In
particular, her requested instruction changed the intent element from “willfully”
to “knew.” Her requested instruction also would have increased the State’s
burden of showing the false information “materially mislead officers” instead of
the statutory requirement that the false information “may interfere with an
investigation or may materially mislead a law enforcement officer.” N.D.C.C. §
12.1-11-03(1). Taken as a whole, the court’s instructions were not generalized,
and adequately advised the jury of the applicable law. See Landrus,
2019 ND 162,
¶ 7 (stating jury instructions are fully reviewable on appeal and will only be
reversed if, taken as a whole, the instructions are erroneous).
[¶10] Landsberger argues the district court’s jury instruction was defective
under our holding in Houkom because the instruction lacked the requirement that
the State prove the defendant may have interfered with a specific investigation
3
or materially misled a specific law enforcement officer. 2021 ND 223. She claims
Houkom required proof that the defendant’s false statements did more than
“possibly have interfered with a hypothetical investigation or could have
materially misled a hypothetical officer.”
[¶11] Landsberger’s reliance on Houkom is misplaced. In Houkom we concluded
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-03 was “clear on its face and unambiguous.” Houkom,
2021
ND 223, ¶ 8. Under the clear statute, we reversed the conviction for failure of
proof on an element of the crime. We stated:
“Here, no investigation of Houkom was underway when she
provided the false name, so the false name cannot be said to have
been made in an official proceeding or matter relating to her since
any suspicion about her began as a result of the statement. Because
there is no testimony explaining any possibility that Houkom’s false
name may have misled [the officer] in his attempt to locate the male,
on the specific facts of this case no reasonable factfinder could find
the required materiality to be satisfied.”
[¶12] Unlike in Houkom, the evidence in this case supported charging and
convicting Landsberger of providing false information to a particular law
enforcement officer. The false information provided to law enforcement by
Landsberger directly related to a purported crime involving her child. Therefore,
our reversal of Houkom’s conviction was on grounds not involved here, and we
reject Landsberger’s claim the holding in that case directs the result in her case.
III
[¶13] The jury instructions taken as a whole were not erroneous and advised the
jury of the applicable law. We affirm the district court’s judgment finding
Landsberger guilty of providing false information to law enforcement.
[¶14] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
4
