State v. Zahn

Criminal No. 960120

Per Curiam.

Douglas Zahn appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of driving under suspension. He argues the judge's comments questioning the relevancy of an exhibit, and the prosecution's remarks during closing statements discussing the credibility of a witness, constituted reversible error. In addition, he alleges the guilty verdict was not supported by competent evidence. Our previous decisions do not support his claim. See State v. Bilbrey, 349 N.W.2d 1, 4 (N.D. 1984) (finding a remark by a judge suggesting the numerous amount of exhibits were confusing was not prejudicial, but rather, within the court's discretion to keep counsel from going into collateral and immaterial matters); State v. Flohr, 310 N.W.2d 735, 737 (N.D. 1981) (noting it is proper for an attorney to comment on the credibility of a witness); State v. Pacheco, 506 N.W.2d 408, 410 (N.D. 1993) (noting if there is substantial evidence warranting a conviction, appellate review does not have to assess the credibility or reweigh the evidence). We, therefore, affirm the verdict under Rule 35.1(a)(3), (4) & (7), N.D.R.App.P.

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.
Herbert L. Meschke
Mary Muehlen Maring
William A. Neumann
Georgia Dawson, D.J.

DAWSON, GEORGIA, D.J., sitting in place of Sandstrom, J., disqualified.