Clarifying Jury Polling, Evidentiary Preservation, and Sentencing Standards: State v. Taylor (2025 ND 91)

Introduction

State of North Dakota v. Jesse Taylor, Jr. arose from a transfer of a juvenile case to district court and culminated in a jury trial for murder (Class AA felony) and aggravated assault (Class C felony). The defendant, Jesse Taylor, Jr., then 18, was convicted by a seven‐day jury trial in August 2023 and sentenced to life with possibility of parole on the murder count and a concurrent five‐year term for aggravated assault. On appeal, Taylor raised three challenges:

Whether the jury verdict was rendered unanimously when one juror’s polling response was omitted from the transcript;
Whether two evidentiary rulings deprived him of proper cross‐examination and impeachment of a State’s witness; and
Whether his life sentence was illegal because the district court used an incorrect age bracket to calculate his remaining life expectancy.

The Supreme Court of North Dakota, in an opinion by Chief Justice Jensen, affirmed the conviction and sentence, clarifying the scope of the unanimity requirement, delineating the “obvious error” standard for unpreserved evidentiary objections, and confirming the correct method for calculating life expectancy under N.D.C.C. § 12.1‐32‐09.1 and Administrative Rule 51.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court addressed each of Taylor’s three appellate issues and reached the following conclusions:

Unanimity of the Verdict: Omitting Juror No. 2’s poll response from the transcript did not violate Taylor’s constitutional right to a unanimous jury when the record demonstrated, through multiple confirmations, that all twelve jurors—including Juror No. 2—affirmed the verdict.
Evidentiary Rulings and Cross‐Examination: Taylor failed to preserve objections to the court’s refusal to allow (a) a question asking whether the witness told the truth at a prior interview, and (b) direct playing of that interview for impeachment. Because Taylor did not make an offer of proof or advance an obvious‐error argument on appeal, the Court declined to address these rulings.
Legality of Sentence: The district court correctly followed N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1(2) and Admin. Rule 51 by using the mortality table age bracket (15–20 years) that Taylor had reached at sentencing, even though he was 18, to calculate the remaining life expectancy. The sentence was authorized and lawful.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a body of precedent to frame each issue:

Unanimity & Jury Polling:
- State v. Kautzman, 2007 ND 133 (requiring objections to be raised at trial absent “obvious error”).
- State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44 (defining “obvious error”).
- State v. Bey, 975 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 2022) (holding errors in polling transcripts do not categorically violate unanimity where record shows unanimity otherwise).
- N.D. Const. art. I, § 13 and N.D.R.Crim.P. 31(a),(d) (mandating unanimous verdicts and permitting jury polling).
Obvious Error in Evidentiary Rulings:
- State v. Doll, 2012 ND 32 (abuse of discretion standard for preserved objections).
- State v. Yousif, 2022 ND 234 (defining abuse of discretion).
- State v. Woodman, 2025 ND 12 and State v. Gardner, 2023 ND 116 (outlining obvious‐error test under Rule 52(b)).
Sentencing & Life Expectancy:
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-09.1(1)‐(2) (requiring 85% service and defining “sentence imposed” as remaining life expectancy calculated by mortality table).
- N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51(2) (specifying the 2019 U.S. Life Tables and methodology).
- State v. Henes, 2009 ND 42 (wide sentencing discretion; sentences illegal if not authorized by statute).

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three distinct strands:

Jury Unanimity and Polling Transcript Omission:
Although the transcript lacked one juror’s affirmation, the record contained three separate confirmations—immediately after verdict reading, in colloquy, and at the remand hearing—that all twelve jurors affirmed the verdict. Under Bey and North Dakota rules, polling is a safeguard, not the sole proof, of unanimity. Absent any contemporaneous objection, Taylor could not show “obvious error” because there was no clear deviation from the rule that all jurors must agree.
Obvious Error Standard for Evidentiary Rulings:
North Dakota requires an offer of proof or explicit objection to preserve evidentiary issues. Taylor neither complied with N.D.R.Ev. 103(a)(2) and N.D.R.Crim.P. 51(a) at trial nor argued “obvious error” with supporting law on appeal. The Court reiterated that it will not scour the record for undeveloped arguments. Without preservation or a proper plain‐error showing, no relief was warranted.
Sentencing and Mortality Table Application:
To calculate “remaining life expectancy” under § 12.1-32-09.1(2), the court looked to the bracketed age categories in Rule 51’s mortality table. Because Taylor had reached age 15 but not age 20 by sentencing, the court permissibly used the 15‐year bracket. This approach adhered to the text of both statute and rule, and the sentence was within statutory bounds.

Impact

State v. Taylor provides guidance on three fronts:

Jury Polling Practices: Courts and litigants will understand that transcription gaps in polling do not automatically void a verdict if other record evidence confirms unanimity.
Evidentiary Preservation: Defense attorneys must make formal offers of proof or state precise objections and grounds. Omitting these steps risks forfeiture of appellate review—absent an explicit plain‐error argument.
Juvenile Transfer Sentencing: Judges calculating life expectancy under § 12.1-32-09.1 should apply the mortality table in Admin. Rule 51 by reference to the bracket the offender’s age falls into, even if an exact age line item is not listed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Unanimous Verdict”: A requirement that all jurors agree. Jury polling is one method to confirm agreement but not the only proof.
“Obvious Error” (Rule 52(b)): Allows appellate courts to correct errors not raised at trial only if the error is clear, affects substantial rights, and threatens the integrity of the proceedings.
Offer of Proof: A trial procedure to inform the court and opposing counsel of the substance of excluded evidence, preserving the issue for appeal.
Remaining Life Expectancy Calculation: For life sentences with parole eligibility, courts use a recognized mortality table to compute the average years left to live at the offender’s age, then apply the 85% service rule.

Conclusion

State v. Taylor, 2025 ND 91, affirms that minor transcript omissions do not undermine unanimity when the record otherwise confirms all jurors agreed. It reinforces strict preservation requirements for evidentiary objections and clarifies that mortality table brackets govern life‐expectancy calculations for sentencing. This decision will shape trial practices, appellate strategies, and sentencing computations in North Dakota’s criminal justice system.