Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

904 N.W.2d 41

State v. Palacio

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 7, 2017

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 2017-12-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 2020

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Gray

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2017-12-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1[¶ 1] Juan Manuel Palacio III appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. Palacio argues the state presented insufficient evidence to uphold the jury’s verdict. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). State v. Gray, 2017 ND 108, ¶¶ 15-16, 893 N.W.2d 484 (affirming judgment where appellant failed to provide a trial transcript on appeal, making it “impossible for this Court to conduct a meaningful and intelligent review” whether the defendant preserved for appeal the issue of insufficiency of the evidence or whether sufficient evidence supported the verdict).

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.Daniel J. CrothersJerod E. TufteJon J. JensenLisa Fair McEvers
/904/nw2d/41 · .json · Public domain