State v MacNeill

MacNeill appealed his murder and obstruction convictions. The panel affirmed. It rejected MacNeill’s insufficient evidence argument as two jailhouse informants testified MacNeill confessed to them, three informants testified MacNeill said the state couldn’t prove the accusation or insulted his wife which were all more consistent with  guilt than innocence, the jury was properly charged on evaluating informant credibility, MacNeill failed to marshal the evidence in support of conviction in his brief and thus failed to meet his burden and significant circumstantial evidence was presented including MacNeill’s adultery, persuading his wife to get cosmetic surgery, giving her unwanted medicine, arranging for a partial alibi, lies about how wife’s body was located in the bathtub and faking CPR. It held that MacNeill proved the state failed to turn over impeachment evidence as to one informant, but, held the district court properly concluded the evidence was cumulative as trial counsel got the informant to admit he sought early release in exchange for his testimony and that the state investigator made promises to contact federal authorities about informant’s case and that the investigator used the phone to avoid detection and further held that MacNeill inadequately briefed the issue as he did not challenge the district court’s analysis or go beyond citation to one case in making his argument. It held there was no error in admitting a recorded interview with one of MacNeill’s daughters as the undue influence he alleged occurred after the interview and no statements after the interview were allowed into evidence, that the state in fact provided evidence that MacNeill’s son made disturbing comments on twitter and that eh failure to have one of the informants avoid television coverage of the trial was harmless as there was no material change in the informant’s testimony.

Gines v Edwards

Gines appealed the verdict in his negligence claim against Edwards. The panel affirmed. It affirmed the decision to allow Edwards’ expert to testify as Gines failed to provide the transcript of the hearing where the district court set out it reasoning. It held that Gines failed to engage with the trial court’s reasoning on allowing the expert to testify about estimate treatment for a person without Gines back issues and thus affirmed. It held that Edwards’s met his burden on apportioning damages between the accident and preexisting conditions by preexisting expert testimony that the accident only caused temporary aggravation and anything he was experiencing after the time frame for recovery was due to the preexisting condition. It finally affirmed the damage award as it was in the range of damages in Edwards’ expert witness testimony and the range of past damages provided by gives evidence once the surgery expenses were deducted.

Oldroyd v Oldroyd

Both parties appealed the property distribution I the divorce decree. The panel vacated and remanded holding that the trial court failed to identify any theory that would support an award of a premarital interest to husband in a house built on wife’s land and thus appellate review was not possible. It also held that husband could try and raise two unpreserved issues in his brief on remand.

State v Landon

Landon appealed his consecutive sentences. The panel affirmed. It held that here was no error in rejecting probation as Landon failed in earlier probation attempts and deliberately rammed a police car causing injury to a police officer and there was no plain error in ordering consecutive sentences as the presentence report considered the statutory factors and the district court relied upon the report, Landon’s failure in earlier probation and the deliberate nature of the act.