The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal conviction of Delon Evan Davis in a case that establishes important precedents for criminal procedure and appellate review standards. Davis was convicted on multiple felony charges including murder, tampering with evidence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and giving false information to law enforcement.
The case originated from the shooting death of Mark Ramon McMillan in the basement of a barbershop in Minot, North Dakota. McMillan had been living in one of several rooms in the basement of the shop, which was managed by Davis, who was also staying in the basement at the time.
The investigation began when the Minot Police Department received a missing person report for McMillan several days after the shooting occurred. During their investigation into McMillan's disappearance, police executed a search warrant at the barbershop. While the search was being conducted, Davis was taken into custody on an unrelated warrant.
During the search of the premises, officers made a grim discovery in the boiler room. They found a body wrapped in a deflated air mattress and bound with duct tape. An autopsy later determined that the cause of death was two gunshot wounds to the torso.
Following his conviction in the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, under the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Davis appealed his conviction to the state's highest court. The appeal raised two primary arguments challenging his conviction.
First, Davis argued that the district court violated North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(e) when it allowed an amendment to Count 3 of the criminal information. This procedural challenge focused on whether the trial court properly handled modifications to the formal charging document during the proceedings.
Second, Davis contended that the trial court committed obvious error by admitting prejudicial testimony about his prior conviction and probation status, arguing this violated North Dakota Rule of Evidence 403. This rule governs the exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Tufte, systematically addressed each of Davis's arguments and ultimately rejected them. The court's syllabus established two key legal principles that will guide future cases.
Regarding the obvious error review standard, the court held that it will not consider an argument under obvious error review unless the appellant properly briefs the issue under that specific standard of review. This ruling emphasizes the importance of proper appellate procedure and ensures that parties cannot simply claim obvious error without meeting the rigorous briefing requirements associated with that standard.
On the evidence admission issue, the court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a prior conviction that was an element of the charged offense. This holding clarifies that when a prior conviction is legally relevant as an element of the charged crime, trial courts have appropriate discretion to admit such evidence, even if it may be prejudicial.
The case was prosecuted by Assistant State's Attorney Tiffany M. Sorgen of Minot, North Dakota, while Davis was represented on appeal by Kiara C. Kraus-Parr of Grand Forks, North Dakota.
This decision has several important implications for criminal law practice in North Dakota. The ruling on obvious error review reinforces the court's expectation that appellate attorneys must be thorough and precise in their briefing, particularly when invoking specialized standards of review. The obvious error standard is typically reserved for issues not properly preserved at trial, and the court's insistence on proper briefing under this standard maintains the integrity of the appellate process.
The evidence ruling regarding prior convictions provides guidance for trial courts facing similar evidentiary decisions. When a defendant's criminal history is directly relevant to an element of the charged offense, trial judges have discretion to admit such evidence, balancing its probative value against potential prejudice.
For criminal defense attorneys, this decision underscores the importance of proper trial objections and appellate briefing. It also highlights the challenges inherent in defending cases where prior convictions are elements of charged offenses, as such evidence becomes much more difficult to exclude.
The affirmance of Davis's conviction means he will continue to serve his sentence for the multiple felony convictions. The case serves as a reminder of the thoroughness required in both criminal investigations and legal proceedings, from the initial police work that uncovered McMillan's body to the appellate process that ultimately validated the conviction.
This opinion, designated as 2026 ND 48, adds to the body of North Dakota criminal law jurisprudence and will likely be cited in future cases involving similar procedural and evidentiary issues.