Affirming Probable Cause through Hearsay and Inference in Terrorizing Charges

Introduction

In State v. Lafromboise, 2025 ND 81, the Supreme Court of North Dakota clarified the standard for establishing probable cause at a preliminary hearing in a terrorizing prosecution. The State of North Dakota (appellant) charged Taylor Scott Lafromboise (appellee) with a Class C felony under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04(1) for allegedly wielding a knife and frightening a woman near a Bismarck restaurant. At the preliminary hearing, the district court dismissed the charge for lack of probable cause, finding insufficient evidence that Lafromboise was the man seen by the eyewitness. The State appealed that dismissal. This commentary examines the background, key issues, the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and the broader implications for criminal procedure and substantive criminal law.

Summary of the Judgment

By a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McEvers, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held:

Probable cause at a preliminary hearing may rest on hearsay, reasonable inferences, and circumstantial evidence.
The testimony of the eyewitness (Patrick Litton), the responding officer (Officer Puklich), and the victim’s prior acquaintance with the defendant provided sufficient grounds to link Lafromboise to the knife-wielding individual.
The minimal burden of proof for probable cause was satisfied, as the State presented evidence that Lafromboise probably committed the terrorizing offense.
The district court erred in discounting identification without requiring direct, trial-level proof of matching clothing or contemporaneous physical description.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

State v. Carrillo, 2021 ND 239: Confirms that an order dismissing an information for lack of probable cause is appealable as one quashing an indictment under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1).
State v. Jackson, 2005 ND 137: Emphasizes substance over form—courts look at the nature of a ruling (legal conclusion vs. factual determination) when deciding appealability.
State v. Foley, 2000 ND 91: Defines a preliminary hearing as a screening tool to guard against detention without probable cause and clarifies that guilt is not adjudicated at this stage.
State v. Blunt, 2008 ND 135 and State v. Berger, 2004 ND 151: Establish that probable cause exists when facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe an offense was committed and that the accused probably committed it.
State v. Goldmann, 2013 ND 105 and State v. Mitchell, 2021 ND 93: Confirm that hearsay is admissible at preliminary hearings and that whether facts reach the level of probable cause is a legal question, fully reviewable on appeal.
State v. Gratton, 2020 ND 41: Describes probable cause as a “minimal burden of proof,” requiring only reasonable grounds rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Laib, 2005 ND 191: Outlines the elements of terrorizing: intent to place another in fear (or recklessness about causing such fear) plus a threat of violent or dangerous act.
State v. Yoney, 2020 ND 118 and State v. Haney, 2023 ND 227: Expand “threat” to include nonverbal actions or gestures that a reasonable person would interpret as menacing.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeded in two steps. First, it confirmed jurisdiction over the State’s appeal, treating the district court’s “judgment of dismissal” as an appealable order quashing an information. Citing Carrillo and Jackson, the Court held that dismissals based on legal conclusions about probable cause are reviewable by this Court.

Second, the Court applied the probable cause standard from Rule 5.1, N.D.R.Crim.P., and the cited precedents. It underscored that:

Hearsay is admissible in whole or part to establish probable cause;
Reasonable inferences from combined testimony—Litton’s eyewitness account, Puklich’s recognition of the defendant, the knife’s confiscation, and the victim’s identification of Lafromboise as an acquaintance—are sufficient to link the defendant to the offense;
The standard at this stage is not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but merely “reasonable grounds” for believing the accused is probably guilty;
Minimal proof of identity suffices, and the absence of matching clothing descriptions or contemporaneous photos does not defeat probable cause.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces that district courts must not erect trial-level evidentiary barriers at the preliminary hearing stage. Key consequences include:

Prosecutors can rely more confidently on hearsay and circumstantial links when establishing probable cause;
Defense challenges to identity at preliminary hearings will face a higher hurdle, as courts will draw reasonable inferences from associations and prior acquaintance;
Judges must respect the minimal burden of proof and avoid dismissing charges when the State presents a coherent narrative, even if direct, admissible‐at‐trial proof is lacking;
The ruling may streamline the commencement of prosecutions involving terrorizing or similar offenses where nonverbal threats and fleeting eyewitness observations are central.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause: A moderate level of belief—less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt—where a reasonable person would think it likely that a crime occurred and the accused committed it.
Preliminary Hearing: A pretrial proceeding to screen out unfounded charges; not a mini-trial on guilt or innocence.
Hearsay Evidence: Statements made outside court offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; admissible at preliminary hearings to show probable cause.
Terrorizing (Class C Felony): Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-04(1), involves threatening violence or dangerous acts with intent to place another in fear, or acting with reckless disregard of that risk.
Minimal Burden of Proof: The lowest threshold in criminal procedure—requires only facts sufficient to induce “reasonable grounds” for belief in the defendant’s probable guilt.

Conclusion

State v. Lafromboise reaffirms that preliminary hearings are procedural safeguards, not evidentiary showdowns. By holding that reasonable inferences drawn from hearsay, circumstantial links, and victim‐acquaintance testimony suffice for probable cause, the Court preserves prosecutorial flexibility at the charging stage. This decision will guide lower courts to uphold indictments where the State presents a coherent narrative—however circumstantial—linking defendant to the offense, thus preventing premature dismissal of serious charges. Ultimately, State v. Lafromboise fortifies the preliminary hearing as an efficient tool to weed out entirely baseless prosecutions while allowing meritorious cases to proceed to trial.