State v. Johansen

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 23, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 130 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 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 23, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 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, 2021 ND 148, ¶ 13, 963 N.W.2d 260. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.