The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Deyan Robert Luetzen for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, rejecting his challenge to jury instructions and evidence sufficiency in a case that highlights evolving interpretations of firearm possession laws.
In *State v. Luetzen* (N.D. 2026), the state's highest court unanimously upheld the criminal judgment after Luetzen appealed his conviction following a jury trial in Ward County District Court. Justice Jensen authored the opinion for the court.
The case originated when law enforcement discovered a handgun in Luetzen's vehicle while he was inside a bar where the vehicle was parked. The State of North Dakota charged Luetzen with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon under state firearms statutes.
Luetzen's defense strategy centered on two primary arguments that challenged both the legal instructions provided to jurors and the sufficiency of evidence presented by prosecutors. His legal team, led by defense attorney Kiara C. Kraus-Parr of Grand Forks, argued the trial court committed reversible error in its handling of the case.
The first major issue involved the trial court's jury instructions regarding the legal definition of "possession" under North Dakota Century Code Title 62.1. Luetzen objected to the proposed jury instructions, asserting they improperly informed jurors that the State did not need to prove he acted intentionally in possessing the firearm.
This challenge centered on recent amendments to N.D.C.C. § 62.1-01-01(11), which defines the term "possession" in the context of firearms law. Luetzen argued the district court failed to instruct the jury consistently with these statutory amendments, creating a fundamental error in how jurors understood the legal standards they needed to apply.
The District Court of Ward County, presided over by the Honorable Gary H. Lee, overruled Luetzen's objection to the jury instructions. The court determined the proposed instructions accurately reflected the applicable law and provided appropriate guidance to jurors about the possession element of the charge.
Luetzen's second argument challenged the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution. After the State rested its case, defense counsel moved for entry of a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence connected Luetzen to the vehicle where the gun was discovered.
This motion raised questions about both the connection between Luetzen and the weapon and whether the discovered item met the statutory definition of a "firearm" under North Dakota law. The defense argued the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the gun in this case satisfied the legal requirements for classification as a firearm under the relevant statutes.
The trial court denied Luetzen's motion for judgment of acquittal, finding the evidence sufficient to support the charges. The case proceeded to jury deliberation, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on the unlawful possession charge.
The prosecution was handled by Assistant State's Attorney Kenessa R. Copeland of Minot, representing the State of North Dakota. The case required prosecutors to demonstrate both that Luetzen possessed the firearm and that he was legally prohibited from doing so due to his prior felony conviction.
On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Luetzen's legal team raised both issues from the trial proceedings. The appeal challenged the district court's handling of jury instructions related to the possession element and argued the trial court obviously erred by not entering a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence.
The Supreme Court's affirmance of the conviction indicates the justices found no reversible error in either the jury instruction or evidentiary sufficiency challenges. The court's analysis focused on interpretation of the amended possession definition statute and evaluation of whether the evidence supported the conviction under applicable legal standards.
This case reflects ongoing legal challenges surrounding firearm possession laws and their interpretation in criminal proceedings. The dispute over jury instructions highlights the complexity of ensuring that legal definitions accurately convey statutory requirements to lay jurors who must apply these standards in criminal cases.
The evidence sufficiency challenge demonstrates the burden facing prosecutors in firearm possession cases, particularly in establishing the connection between defendants and weapons discovered in vehicles or other locations where multiple individuals might have access.
The North Dakota Supreme Court's affirmance provides guidance for lower courts handling similar cases involving firearm possession by prohibited persons. The decision clarifies how courts should interpret recent statutory amendments and what evidence standards apply in these prosecutions.
For defense attorneys, the ruling establishes precedent about the limits of challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary sufficiency in firearm possession cases. The decision may influence how similar cases are litigated and what arguments courts will find persuasive in future appeals.
The case also reflects the broader legal framework governing firearm possession by felons, an area of law that continues to evolve through both legislative amendments and judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court's handling of the statutory interpretation issues may provide guidance for future cases involving similar legal challenges.