State v. Mejia
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: 249 Summary affirmance is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. In a case tried without a jury, the court need only find the defendant guilty or not guilty.
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2018 ND 249
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Joel Mejia, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20180178
Appeal from the District Court of Mountrail County, North Central Judicial District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Wade G. Enget, Mountrail County State's Attorney, Stanley, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Caitlyn A. Pierson, Minot, ND, for defendant and appellant.
State v. MejiaNo. 20180178
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Joel Mejia appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he was found guilty of simple assault following a bench trial. Mejia argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for simple assault and that the district court was required to make a finding on his claim of self-defense. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. We also affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7), concluding in a case tried without a jury, the court need only find the defendant guilty or not guilty. State v. Berger, 235 N.W.2d 254, 263 (N.D. 1975).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Jon J. Jensen
Jerod E. Tufte
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
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.