Volume 964 — North Western Reporter, Second Series

A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor. To convict for terrorizing, the State must prove that the defendant intended to cause another person to fear for his or another person's safety or acted with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such fear and that the defendant made a threat to commit a crime of violence or act dangerous to human life.

A district court must specify facts on which its conclusions are based that a sexually dangerous individual continues to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Both past conduct and present conduct are relevant to determine whether an individual continues to have serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The conduct need not be sexual in nature. Evidence of negative and inappropriate behaviors, including incidents demonstrating more than mere horseplay, may be sufficient to demonstrate serious difficulty controlling behavior.

To intervene as a matter of right, a person must establish on timely motion that 1) the person has a cognizable interest in the subject matter of the litigation, 2) the interest may be impaired as a result of the litigation, and 3) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party to the litigation. Exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is purely discretionary and decided on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique circumstances of each case.

A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).