A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of robbery, accomplice to theft, and theft of a credit device is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Cody Lee Littleghost, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20240199
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the
Honorable Reid A. Brady, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Nicholas S. Samuelson and Brianna K. Kraft, Assistant State’s Attorneys, Fargo,
ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
State v. Littleghost
No. 20240199
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Cody Littleghost appeals the criminal judgment entered after a jury found
him guilty of robbery, accomplice to theft, and theft of a credit device. On appeal,
Littleghost argues the district court erred when it denied his motion for
judgment of acquittal and the jury instructions were improper because the
essential elements of the robbery charge do not identify specific conduct
committed by Littleghost.
[¶2] We conclude sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict and that
Littleghost waived his argument regarding the jury instructions, by responding
“no objections or requests” when prompted for any objections. State v. Goodale,
, 8 N.W.3d 271 (holding claim of error waived by answering
“yes” in response to inquiry whether instructions were acceptable). We affirm
the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
1
