IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
State of North Dakota,
Plaintiff- Appellee,
vs.
Jonathan Horvath,
Defendant- Appellant.
SUPREME COURT NOS. 20140468
20140469
20140470 Criminal Nos. 53-2013-CR-00607 53-2013-CR-00608 53-2013-CR-00669
ON APPEAL FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS, ENTERED DECEMBER 24, 2014
WILLIAMS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NORTHWEST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE DAVID W. NELSON, PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Scott O. Diamond
ND bar # 05773 210 Broadway, Suite 401B Fargo, ND 58102 Telephone: (701) 373-0373 Fax: (701) 373-0330 Email: [email protected] Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant
201404682014046920140470
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT APRIL 1, 2015 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ………...…………………………………………… ii
Paragraph
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ……………………………………………………... ¶ 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ………………………………………………………... ¶ 2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS …...………………………………………………...... ¶ 5
LAW AND ARGUMENT ………….………………………………………………... ¶ 22 I. Jonathan Horvath’s conviction for murder should be reversed because
the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict ……………..…….. ¶ 24 CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………...….. ¶ 31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES North Dakota Cases Paragraph
State v. Johnson, 2001 ND 184, 636 N.W.2d 391 ……………….…………….…….. ¶ 24
State v. Kinsella, 2011 ND 88, 796 N.W.2d 678 …………………………………….. ¶ 23
State v. Nakvinda, 2011 ND 217, 807 N.W.2d 204 ………………………………….. ¶ 23
State v. Noorlun, 2005 ND 189, 705 N.W.2d 819 ……………..…………………….. ¶ 23
State v. Wanner, 2010 ND 121, 784 N.W.2d 143 ……………………………………. ¶ 23
North Dakota Constitution
N.D. Const. art. VI § 6 …………………………………………………………..…… ¶ 22
North Dakota Statutes
N.D.C.C. §12.1-02-02 ………….…………………………………………………….. ¶ 25
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01 …………………...…………………………………….…….. ¶ 24
N.D.C.C. § 29-28-03 …………...………………………..…………………..…… ¶ 22, 24
N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06 ……………...………………………………………………..… ¶ 22
1
[¶1] STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
I. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain Jonathan Horvath’s conviction for murder.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[¶2] This is a consolidated appeal from five Criminal Judgments which were entered
against Jonathan Horvath (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Horvath”) after a single jury
trial. In file number 53-2013-CR-00607, Mr. Horvath was charged with two counts of
Terrorizing. (Appellant’s App. at 1). In file number 53-2013-CR-00608, Mr. Horvath
was charged with Murder and Reckless Endangerment. (Appellant’s App. at 7).
[¶3] On July 8, 2014, a single jury trial was commenced, on both files, on the two
counts of Terrorizing, Reckless Endangerment and Murder. (Appellant’s App. at 1 - 12).
At the close of the State’s case, Mr. Horvath moved for a Rule 29 Judgment of Acquittal
in regards to all counts. (Tr. at 451, ln. 23 – 452, ln. 4). Mr. Horvath’s motion was
denied by the trial court. (Tr. at 452, ln. 5 – 8). Following the trial, the Mr. Horvath was
convicted of two counts of Terrorizing, Reckless Endangerment and Murder.
(Appellant’s App. at 18 – 26). After jury trial, Mr. Horvath filed a renewed Motion for
Rule 29 Judgment of Acquittal and Motion for New Trial. (Appellant’s App. at 17). Mr.
Horvath now appeals from the Criminal Judgments entered against him. (Appellant’s
App. at 29).
[¶4] In file number 53-2013-CR-00669, Mr. Horvath was charged with Possession of a
Firearm by Felon. (Appellant’s App. at 14). Prior to the jury trial on the other charges,
Mr. Horvath pled guilty to this charge. See id. The Criminal Judgment incorrectly
indicates that Mr. Horvath was convicted by a jury of this charge. (Appellant’s App. at
27). Although included in the Notice of Appeal, Mr. Horvath is not seeking relief from
this Court, with regard to the Possession of a Firearm charge. (Appellant’s App. at 29).
3
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
[¶5] In March, 2013, Mr. Horvath moved to Alexander, North Dakota, to find steel
construction work in the oil patch. (Tr. at 460, ln. 7 – 21). Mr. Horvath had only been in
North Dakota for five days before March 15, 2013, which was the night of the altercation.
(Tr. at 460, ln. 21). On March 15, 2013, Mr. Horvath had spent the day preparing for a
steel construction job. (Tr. at 461, ln. 17 – 18). Mr. Horvath was reluctant to go to
Williston that night, as he had heard stories about the “turmoil” associated with the area.
(Tr. at 462, ln. 11 – 22). Mr. Horvath had an acquaintance that had been injured in a
previous altercation in Williston, which made him nervous about going to Williston. (Tr.
at 463, ln. 8 – 18). Despite these misgivings, some of Mr. Horvath’s co-workers
convinced him to go to Williston on the night of March 15, 2013. (Tr. at 462, ln. 1 – 6).
[¶6] Mr. Horvath, along with Rich Donohoe, Don Rohrenback, Kevin Kallio and
Brittney Montee, went to an area of Williston commonly referred to as South Main. (Tr.
at 61, ln. 23 – 62, ln. 4). This area is at the very south end of Main Street in Williston.
(Tr. at 151, ln. 3 – 6). There are a number of bars in this area, including two nightclubs
known as Heartbreakers and Whispers and a bar called the No Place Bar. (Tr. at 62, ln.
9). These three establishments all face Main Street and are connected in that they share
common walls. (Tr. at 151, ln. 11 – 15).
[¶7] Mr. Horvath went into Whispers. (Tr. at 464, ln. 23 – 24). While in Whispers,
Mr. Horvath spoke to an unidentified man, whom he had never before met. (Tr. at 465,
ln 16 – 466, ln. 1). During their conversation, this individual showed Mr. Horvath a
handgun and a veiled reference to a drug cartel. (Tr. at 465, ln. 16 – 24). This exchange
put Mr. Horvath “extremely on edge”. (Tr. at 466, ln. 3).
4
[¶8] Mr. Horvath left Whispers. (Tr. at 466, ln. 4 – 6). As he left, Mr. Horvath saw
Don Rohrenback, one of the individuals with whom he had come, in “an argument and
confrontation” with Derrick Spiegel (hereinafter referred to as Mr. Spiegel). (Tr. at 466,
ln. 14 – 15). Mr. Horvath broke up this argument between Don Rohrenback and Mr.
Spiegel. (Tr. at 466, ln. 17 – 21). After breaking up the argument between these two,
Mr. Horvath and most of the group met back at the pick-up truck, in which they had
come. (Tr. at 467, ln. 17 – 20).
[¶9] There are video cameras situated in front of Whispers and Heartbreakers. (Tr. at
67, ln. 17). One video camera covers the sidewalk area directly in front of the
Heartbreakers building. (Tr. at 67, ln. 18 – 24). The video from this camera was
obtained by law enforcement and was admitted as an exhibit during the course of the
trial. (Tr. at 69, ln. 11). The video was played multiple times throughout the trial. The
first time Mr. Horvath is seen on the video, he is on the sidewalk in front of the
Heartbreakers building and he is seen trying to get Don Rohrenback moved back towards
his vehicle. (Tr. at 102, ln. 14 – 18). The video indicates the time of this initial incident
was 1:11 a.m. (Tr. at 101, ln. 6 – 10). However, the time on the video was later
determined to be inaccurate and it was likely around 12:50 a.m. (Tr. at 101, ln. 6 – 16:
Tr. at 66, ln. 6).
[¶10] While back at the truck, Mr. Horvath realized that Brittney Montee was still
inside one of the bars. (Tr. at 467, ln. 19 – 23). Mr. Horvath discussed the situation with
the individuals with whom he had come. (Tr. at 467, ln. 23 – 468, ln. 7). Mr. Horvath
was reluctant to go back, as he feared an altercation could occur. (Tr. at 467, ln. 23 –
5
468, ln. 7). Despite his reluctance to go back, the group decided that Mr. Horvath should
go back to get Brittney Montee from the bar area. (Tr. at 468, ln. 2 – 7).
[¶11] Mr. Horvath went back to the sidewalk area in front of the Heartbreakers
building, where he was confronted by Amanda Baker. (Tr. at 468, ln. 7 – 8). During the
ensuing confrontation, Amanda Baker told Mr. Horvath that if an altercation happened,
“it was gonna be all of them.” (Tr. at 468, ln. 11 – 12). Amanda Baker told Mr. Horvath,
“Come one, call all,” which she explained as a statement that all of her friends would
stick together in an altercation. (Tr. at 144, ln. 9 – 10). Mr. Horvath then left the bar area
and went back to the truck a second time. (Tr. at 468, ln. 15). While back at the truck
for the second time, Mr. Horvath retrieved his pistol for his protection. (Tr. at 468, ln. 15
– 16).
[¶12] Mr. Horvath went back over the sidewalk area in front of the Heartbreakers
building, to look for Brittney Montee. (Tr. at 469, ln. 1 – 3). An argument began again.
(Tr. at 469, ln. 1 – 15). Mr. Horvath felt threatened and intimidated at that point, because
he was outnumbered and he believed that physical violence was imminent. (Tr. at 469,
ln. 11 – 15, 499, ln 18 – 20). At this point, Mr. Horvath removed his pistol from his
pocket and pointed it towards Mr. Spiegel. (Tr. at 469, ln. 17 – 18). As he removed the
pistol from his pocket, Mr. Horvath’s did not intend to fire the pistol. (Tr. at 470, ln. 18 –
19).
[¶13] A struggle began between Mr. Horvath, Mr. Spiegel and Amanda Baker. (Tr. at
469, ln. 22 – 25). Mr. Spiegel and Amanda Baker grabbed Mr. Horvath’s arms. (Tr. at
469, ln. 22: Tr. at 104, ln. 18 – 24). They fell towards the recessed area of the door to
Heartbreakers and the gun accidentally discharged. (Tr. at 469, ln. 22 – 23). Mr.
6
Horvath began backing up, trying to get out of Mr. Spiegel’s grasp. (Tr. at 471, ln. 14 –
17). As they “wrestled”, the gun accidentally discharged a second time, while on the
sidewalk. (Tr. at 469, ln. 23). Mr. Horvath and Mr. Spiegel stumbled and fell into the
street, where the gun accidentally discharged for a third time. (Tr. at 471, ln. 14 – 24).
The third discharge of the pistol struck Mr. Spiegel. (Tr. at 471, ln. 21 – 24).
[¶14] Mr. Spiegel sustained a gunshot wound to the head. (Tr. at 339, ln. 17). Mr.
Spiegel was taken to the emergency room and eventually died at the hospital. (Tr. at 225,
ln. 11 – 13).
[¶15] The video from the Heartbreaker’s building shows Mr. Horvath, Mr. Spiegel and
Amanda Baker arguing on the sidewalk. (Tr. at 73, ln. 6 – 9). The video shows Mr.
Horvath drawing a firearm out of his pocket. (Tr. at 74, ln. 20). The video shows a
struggle between Mr. Horvath and Mr. Spiegel with Amanda Baker between them. (Tr.
at 77, ln. 9 – 10, 24 – 25). During the struggle, Amanda Baker grabbed Mr. Horvath’s
arm. (Tr. at 104, ln. 18 – 24). Mr. Horvath and Mr. Spiegel stumble into the recessed
area of the doorway of Heartbreakers and are partially obscured from the view of the
camera. (Tr. at 78, ln. 4 – 6). While in this recessed area, there appears to a muzzle
flash. (Tr. at 105, ln. 4 – 5). The struggle continues and Mr. Horvath is seen falling
backwards while on the sidewalk, with Mr. Spiegel hanging onto him. (Tr. at 105, ln. 12
– 17). While Mr. Spiegel and Mr. Horvath are on the sidewalk and moving towards the
street, the video shows a second muzzle flash. (Tr. at 106, ln. 1 – 8). Finally, the video
shows Mr. Horvath and Mr. Spiegel on the street, where they disappear from the screen
and a third muzzle flash occurs. (Tr. at 78, ln. 15 – 17: Tr. at 106, ln 9 – 14).
7
[¶16] The struggle with the pistol and the discharging of the weapon all happened very
fast. (Tr. at 146, ln. 25 – 147, ln. 3). This time was estimated to between one to two
seconds. (Tr. at 104, ln. 4 – 9).
[¶17] Mr. Horvath testified that he never intentionally pulled the trigger of the pistol.
(Tr. at 470, ln. 1 – 9). Mr. Horvath testified that he never intended to kill Mr. Spiegel.
(Tr. at 476, ln 6 – 8: Tr. at 470, ln. 18 – 22). Mr. Horvath testified that the discharge of
the weapon was accidental. (Tr. at 485, ln 8 – 11: Tr. at 486, ln. 14 – 16: Tr. at 498, ln.
24 – 499, ln. 1).
[¶18] Steven McCollum obtained Mr. Horvath’s weapon, which was identified as a
Smith and Wesson semiautomatic handgun. (Tr. at 266, ln. 8). Mr. McCollum testified
that he is familiar with this sort of handgun. (Tr. at 277, ln. 7 – 8). Mr. McCollum
testified that with this sort of handgun, if a round is in the chamber, all that is necessary
to discharge the weapon is for the trigger to be pulled. (Tr. at 278, ln. 2 – 5).
[¶19] After the discharge of the weapon, Mr. Horvath went back to the pick-up truck.
(Tr. at 472, ln. 1). Bruce Sesseman worked as a security officer for Heartbreakers
nightclub and he was in Heartbreakers that night. (Tr. at 195, ln. 22 – 23). Bruce
Sesseman followed Mr. Horvath to the pickup truck. (Tr. at 197, ln. 24). Mr. Sesseman
began struggling with Mr. Horvath inside the pickup truck. (Tr. at 198, ln. 12, 200, ln. 7
– 11). After Mr. Horvath exited the pickup truck, Mr. Sesseman “leg swiped” him. (Tr.
at 200, ln. 21). Mr. Horvath ran and Mr. Sesseman and two other individuals began
chasing him for about three blocks. (Tr. at 200, ln. 23 – 201, ln. 4).
[¶20] Mr. Horvath ran away from Mr. Sesseman and the other two individuals,
eventually ending up at Westside Fuel. (Tr. at 473, ln. 19 – 22). While there he got a
8
ride back to Alexander, North Dakota. (Tr. at 474, ln. 3 – 4). From Alexander, Mr.
Horvath traveled to Billings, Montana. (Tr. at 470, ln. 11 – 14). Mr. Horvath testified
that he wanted to get back home, “to get somewhere safe, and then be able to come back
and deal with it”. (Tr. at 474, ln. 19 – 21). Mr. Horvath was arrested in Billings,
Montana and brought back to North Dakota. (Tr. at 364, ln. 1 – 8).
[¶21] On July 16, 2014, following a single jury trial on all charges, Mr. Horvath was
convicted of two counts of Terrorizing, Reckless Endangerment and Murder.
(Appellant’s App. at 18 – 26).
LAW AND ARGUMENT
[¶22] This is an appeal of multiple Criminal Judgments entered after a consolidated jury
trial. (Appellant’s App. at 29). This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal under N.D.
Const. art. VI § 6, N.D.C.C. § 29-28-03 and N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06.
Standard of Review
[¶23] The standard of review for a claim of insufficiency of the evidence is well
established. State v. Nakvinda, 2011 ND 217, ¶ 12, 807 N.W.2d 204. “When the
sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged, this Court merely
reviews the record to determine if there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw
an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a conviction. The
defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of
guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. State v. Kinsella, 2011
ND 88, ¶ 7, 796 N.W.2d 678 (quoting State v. Wanner, 2010 ND 121, ¶ 9, 784 N.W.2d
9
143). In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will review the
evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict, to ascertain if there is
substantial evidence to warrant the conviction. State v. Noorlun, 2005 ND 189, ¶ 20, 705
N.W.2d 819. “A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the
benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could
find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. This is a heavy, but not
impossible, burden to meet.
I. JONATHAN HORVATH’S CONVICTION FOR MURDER SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY’S VERDICT.
[¶24] Jonathan Horvath was convicted of the murder of Mr. Spiegel, in violation of
N.D.C.C.§ 12.1-16-01. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01 provides:
A person is guilty of murder, a class AA, felony, if the person: a. Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of
another human being; […]
In order to prove Mr. Horvath committed this crime, the jury was required to find that the
State had proved each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-03. State v. Johnson, 2001 ND 184, ¶ 13, 636 N.W.2d 391. The
elements of the offense, which the State was required to prove, included the required
culpability for the crime. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-03(1)(c).
[¶25] In order to find Mr. Horvath guilty of the offense of Murder, the State was
required to prove that Mr. Horvath acted intentionally or knowingly. A person engages
in conduct intentionally, “if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his purpose to do so.”
10
N.D.C.C. §12.1-02-02(1)(a). A person engages in conduct knowingly, “If when he
engages in the conduct, he knows of has a firm belief, unaccompanied by substantial
doubt, that he is doing so, whether or not it is his purpose to do so.” N.D.C.C. §12.1-02-
02(1)(b).
[¶26] The facts in this case precluded a finding that Mr. Horvath intentionally or
knowingly caused Mr. Spiegel’s death. Prior to March 15, 2013, Mr. Horvath had heard
stories about the potential for violence, which could occur in the Williston area, and
which made him nervous about going to Williston. (Tr. at 462, ln. 11 – 22): Tr. at 463,
ln. 8 – 18). Mr. Horvath’s fears were confirmed, when Mr. Horvath was in Whispers.
While in Whispers, Mr. Horvath spoke to a man who showed Mr. Horvath his pistol and
made a reference to a drug cartel. (Tr. at 465, ln. 16 – 24). This exchange put Mr.
Horvath “extremely on edge”. (Tr. at 466, ln. 3). As he left Whispers, Mr. Horvath
witnessed and broke up an argument between Mr. Spiegel and one of the individuals with
whom he had come. (Tr. at 466, ln. 17 – 21). This continued to increase his
apprehension. When he went back to the Heartbreaker’s area, he was confronted by
Amanda Baker. (Tr. at 468, ln. 7 – 8).
[¶27] It is important to understand this chain of events, as this created the dreadful
mindset that Mr. Horvath had as he decided to get his pistol from the truck. He was
initially concerned about going to Williston and his concerns were ultimately confirmed
as he saw a friend in an argument and then felt personally threatened in the argument
with Amanda Baker. All of these events combined to place Mr. Horvath in a tense and
fearful attitude, as he went back to the truck and retrieved his pistol. He did not retrieve
11
the pistol with the intent to shoot it. Rather, he believed that he needed the pistol for his
own protection.
[¶28] When Mr. Horvath went back to the Heartbreakers area, he had his pistol with
him for his protection. An argument began. (Tr. at 469, ln. 1 – 15). Mr. Horvath felt
threatened and intimidated at that point and he believed that physical violence was
imminent. (Tr. at 469, ln. 11 – 15, 499, ln 18 – 20). He then brought out the pistol. At
the time he removed the pistol from his pocket, it was not because he intended to fire it,
but rather for his own protection against a crowd of potential attackers.
[¶29] When Mr. Horvath removed the pistol from his pocket, the struggle began. Even
during the course of the struggle, Mr. Horvath did not intend to fire the pistol. (Tr. at
470, ln. 1 – 9). The struggle happened very fast and only lasted one to two seconds,
before the pistol accidentally discharged. (Tr. at 104, ln. 4 – 9). This was an insufficient
amount of time to form the intent to fire the pistol.
[¶30] The pistol accidentally discharged. A review of the video indicates that Mr.
Horvath was falling backwards prior to the third discharge of the pistol, which was the
discharge that struck Mr. Spiegel. (Tr. at 471, ln. 21 – 24). Because he was falling
backwards and struggling with two other individuals, a reasonable jury would conclude
that the discharge was accidental. All that was necessary to discharge the pistol was for
someone to accidentally pull the trigger. (Tr. at 278, ln. 2 – 5). This could have easily
happened accidentally, during the struggle. The evidence was that the discharge was
accidental. There was insufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer
intent under these circumstances. Even when viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty
12
beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the jury’s verdict should be set aside and Mr.
Horvath should be allowed a new trial.
CONCLUSION
[¶31] For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Horvath’s conviction should be reversed and the
case should be remanded for a new trial.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2015.
/s/ Scott O. Diamond Scott O. Diamond
ND bar # 05773 210 Broadway, Suite 401B Fargo, ND 58102 Telephone: (701) 373-0373 Fax: (701) 373-0330 Email: [email protected] Attorney for the Defendant