The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a criminal conviction that required a mandatory minimum sentence for terrorizing committed with a firearm, clarifying the application of state sentencing enhancement laws in *State v. Reese* (N.D. 2026).
Cody Joseph Reese appealed his conviction from the District Court of Ward County, challenging the trial court's finding that his terrorizing offense was committed with a firearm. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected his appeal, with Justice Tufte writing for the court.
The case arose from an incident at a Minot restaurant where Reese allegedly threatened to shoot or kill people and subsequently resisted arrest by law enforcement. The State initially charged Reese with eight counts of terrorizing with a dangerous weapon or firearm and one count of preventing arrest.
Under North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1-32-02.1(1)(a), courts must impose a term of imprisonment when an offender threatens another with imminent bodily injury using a firearm during the commission of an offense. This mandatory sentencing enhancement carries a minimum two-year prison term.
The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss seven of the terrorizing counts, leaving Reese to face trial on one count of terrorizing and one count of preventing arrest. During the bench trial before Judge Gary H. Lee, Reese took an unusual strategic approach by stipulating to all essential elements of the terrorizing offense while contesting only the application of the mandatory minimum sentence for possessing a firearm.
The trial featured testimony from three witnesses: a restaurant manager, a patron who witnessed the incident, and a responding police officer. The court also reviewed surveillance footage from the restaurant during its deliberations.
Reese's defense strategy focused narrowly on challenging whether the terrorizing offense was actually committed "with a firearm" as required by the sentencing enhancement statute. His legal team argued that the State failed to prove this critical element necessary to trigger the mandatory minimum sentence.
The district court found against Reese on this issue, determining that the terrorizing offense was indeed committed with a firearm. This finding automatically triggered the mandatory minimum two-year imprisonment requirement under state law.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Reese maintained his argument that the district court erred in finding the terrorizing offense was committed with a firearm. He contended this error invalidated the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the trial court.
The Supreme Court disagreed, affirming both the conviction and the sentence. The high court's opinion, authored by Justice Tufte, upheld the district court's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding the firearm enhancement.
The case represents an important clarification of North Dakota's firearm sentencing enhancement laws, particularly in cases involving terrorizing charges. The court's syllabus emphasizes that imprisonment is mandatory when offenders threaten others with imminent bodily injury "using, or through the use or means of, a firearm."
This statutory language creates a broad scope for the enhancement, applying not only when defendants directly wield firearms but also when they use firearms as a means of threatening others. The Supreme Court's affirmance reinforces that trial courts have discretion to make factual determinations about whether offenses were committed with firearms based on the evidence presented.
The decision also highlights the strategic considerations defendants face when challenging firearm enhancements. By stipulating to the underlying offense elements, Reese narrowed his appeal to the single issue of firearm possession, but this approach ultimately proved unsuccessful.
From a prosecutorial perspective, the ruling validates the State's approach to seeking firearm enhancements in terrorizing cases. The case demonstrates that even when defendants stipulate to most elements of an offense, prosecutors can still secure enhanced sentences by proving firearm involvement through witness testimony and physical evidence.
The unanimous nature of the Supreme Court's decision suggests strong consensus among the justices regarding the proper application of the firearm enhancement statute. This unanimity likely strengthens the precedential value of the ruling for future cases involving similar fact patterns.
Reese was represented on appeal by Thomas J. Burckhard of Minot, while Assistant State's Attorneys Christopher W. Nelson and Jacob A. Schmidt represented the State. Nelson presented oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
The case number 20250161 was decided as 2026 ND 39, indicating it was the 39th published opinion from the North Dakota Supreme Court in 2026. The relatively early numbering suggests the court prioritized resolving this sentencing enhancement issue.
This decision reinforces North Dakota's commitment to enhanced penalties for firearm-related offenses, particularly those involving threats of violence against others. The mandatory minimum sentencing framework reflects legislative intent to deter gun violence and ensure serious consequences for defendants who use firearms to intimidate others.