In-depth legal guide
Threatening Public Servants and False Liens in North Dakota
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-12-06 is not one undifferentiated threat offense. It contains two class C felony theories involving harm used to influence a public servant, three more class C felony theories involving specifically enumerated coercive threats, and a separate false-lien offense that ordinarily begins as a class A misdemeanor but can become a class C felony after two qualifying prior pleas or convictions. The exact words, audience, context, intended government action, proceeding or duty, filed instrument, falsity, culpability, and prior record must be matched to the charged subsection.
You will work directly with me.
I will preserve the complete words and context, identify the precise public action, proceeding, or duty the State claims you intended to influence, analyze the recipient’s public role, and test attribution and intent. For a lien allegation, I will obtain the filed instrument, filing history, claimed obligation, property record, communications, alleged falsity, and every record offered to prove a qualifying prior offense.
The threat theories and false-lien theory require different proof
The case should be analyzed through the exact subsection rather than a general claim that a public employee felt threatened or received an invalid filing.
- Threat
- The State should identify the words or conduct, speaker, recipient, meaning, context, and type of harm or enumerated coercion alleged.
- Public servant
- The recipient must fit the statutory definition or otherwise supply the public-servant official action targeted by subsection 2.
- Intent to influence
- Subsections 1 and 2 require intent to influence the specified official action or duty; anger alone is not that element.
- Proceeding or duty
- Subsection 1 requires the identified judicial or administrative proceeding held before the servant or an identified public duty.
- False lien
- Subsection 3 requires filing against public-servant property plus knowledge or reason to know of falsity or a materially false or fraudulent representation.
- Classification facts
- The false-lien enhancement requires two or more qualifying prior pleas or convictions under the same subsection.
Official starting points
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-12-06 — threat theories, false liens, grading, and the no-defense provision.
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-04 — harm, official action, public servant, and governmental function.
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-02 — intent, knowledge, mistake, and liability.
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-32 — felony and misdemeanor ceilings.
The charge should identify the threatened consequence and intended influence
The cards group the two subsection 1 alternatives and three subsection 2 alternatives while keeping the lien offense separate.
Harm tied to a proceeding or duty
Subsection 1 covers threatened harm intended to influence official action in a pending or prospective judicial or administrative proceeding held before the public servant, or to induce violation of a public-servant duty.
Threat of crime or unlawful conduct
Subsection 2(a) requires intent to influence another’s official action as a public servant and a threat to commit a crime or do something unlawful.
Criminal accusation or reputational exposure
Subsections 2(b) and 2(c) address threats to accuse anyone of crime or expose a secret or asserted fact, true or false, tending toward the specified hatred, contempt, ridicule, credit, or business harm.
False lien or encumbrance
Subsection 3 addresses filing against a public servant’s property with knowledge or reason to know of falsity. Its misdemeanor baseline and repeat-felony enhancement differ from the threat theories.
The complete communication matters more than an isolated phrase
A threat can be direct, conditional, implied, repeated, written, spoken, posted, transmitted through another person, or embedded in conduct. That does not mean every conditional or offensive statement is criminal. Meaning depends on the words, surrounding exchange, speaker and recipient history, audience, medium, timing, specificity, capability evidence, reaction, subsequent conduct, and the government decision or duty allegedly targeted.
The statutory intent is critical. Subsection 1 requires intent to influence official action in a qualifying proceeding or intent to influence a duty violation. Subsection 2 requires intent to influence another’s official action. A venting statement, prediction, warning of lawful consequences, promise to appeal, public criticism, request for recusal, ethics complaint, election advocacy, or statement of political opposition may be forceful without proving the charged intent. The State may use circumstantial evidence, but it must connect the threat to an influence objective.
Subsection 1’s two alternatives are not identical
The proceeding branch concerns official action in a pending or prospective judicial or administrative proceeding held before the threatened public servant. The proceeding, its pending or prospective status, the servant’s role in it, the official action, and the intent to influence should be identified. A general dispute with government does not establish that structure.
The duty branch concerns intent to influence the public servant to violate the servant’s duty. It does not require the same proceeding, but the prosecution should identify the duty, its legal or official source, what violation was sought, and what proves the influence intent. A disagreement over how discretion should be exercised is not automatically a request to violate duty.
“Harm” is broader than physical injury
Section 12.1-01-04 defines harm as loss, disadvantage, or injury to the affected person and includes loss, disadvantage, or injury to another person in whose welfare the affected person is interested. Subsection 1 can therefore reach more than threatened violence. The State must still prove a threat of harm within a fair reading of the communication and the specified intent.
Subsection 2 enumerates the threat rather than using general harm
Subsection 2(a) concerns threatened crime or unlawful conduct. The allegedly criminal or unlawful act should be identified; a threat to do something lawful does not fit that branch merely because it is unwelcome. Subsection 2(b) concerns threatening to accuse anyone of a crime, which may include an accusation directed at someone other than the public servant when used to influence the servant’s official action.
Subsection 2(c) concerns exposure of a secret or publication of an asserted fact, whether true or false, that tends to subject a living or deceased individual to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or impair another’s credit or business reputation. Truth is not automatically a defense to that branch because the text says true or false. The State must still prove a threat, the specified tendency, intent to influence official action, and constitutional application.
Public-servant and official-action definitions require evidence
A public servant includes an elected or appointed government officer or employee and a person participating in performance of a governmental function; witnesses are excluded. Official action includes a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion by a government agency. The recipient’s title may be evidence, but appointment, employment, authority, delegation, and function define the role.
What did the communication mean in its full setting?
The strongest analysis identifies both the words and the public action the State says they were designed to influence.
Who made and received it?
Account ownership, device access, voice identification, forwarding, screenshots, intermediaries, impersonation, authorship, and adoption can be disputed.
What preceded and followed it?
Questions, provocation, quoted material, correction, sarcasm, political debate, escalating conduct, silence, apology, and subsequent acts can change meaning and intent.
What government action was targeted?
Identify the hearing, order, vote, recommendation, investigation, decision, enforcement act, or duty and the public servant’s actual role.
Was the condition lawful?
A promise to appeal, complain, sue, report misconduct, speak publicly, or vote against someone differs from threatening unlawful conduct, though the entire exchange still matters.
What does the recipient say it meant?
Reaction can be relevant, but the recipient’s fear or interpretation does not replace the statutory words and intent. Compare it with contemporaneous conduct and the full record.
Did the statement target influence or express opposition?
Timing around an official decision can support an inference, but lawful criticism and petitioning cannot be converted into criminal influence without satisfying the statute and constitutional limits.
The statute must be applied without criminalizing protected advocacy
The First Amendment does not protect every threat, coercive demand, retaliatory statement, or fraudulent filing. It does protect substantial political criticism, petitioning, reporting misconduct, and advocacy. A defense should not rely on a slogan that all speech is protected, and a prosecution should not rely on a slogan that all alarming speech is a threat. The charged words, context, statutory intent, public objective, and applicable threat doctrine require case-specific analysis.
Conditional language is evidence, not an automatic answer
“If” and “unless” can reveal a coercive demand, a prediction, or a lawful description of consequences. A conditional statement may be criminal when it communicates the prohibited threat with influence intent, while an unconditional insult may still fall outside the statute. The condition, requested act, speaker’s control over the consequence, and context should be evaluated together.
Truth does not automatically defeat the reputational branch
Subsection 2(c) expressly refers to an asserted fact whether true or false. Its core issue is the threatened exposure or publicity used with intent to influence official action and tending toward the specified reputational consequences. That textual rule does not end constitutional analysis. The court must still apply the statute to the proved communication consistently with governing speech protections.
Public officials may expect criticism, but the statute protects government integrity
The law distinguishes pressure through enumerated coercive threats from attempts to persuade through evidence, argument, lawful process, journalism, public comment, voting, litigation, complaint, or appeal. Preserve the stated grievance, requested remedy, legal citations, public records, and surrounding advocacy so the factfinder can see whether the communication was coercion or protected participation.
Subsection 3 does not require proof of an influence threat
A person violates subsection 3 by filing a lien or encumbrance against real or personal property of a public servant while knowing or having reason to know the lien or encumbrance is false or contains a materially false or fraudulent statement or representation. The text focuses on filing, protected property, public-servant status, falsity or material falsehood, and culpability. The State need not force those facts into subsections 1 or 2.
Obtain the exact filed instrument and official record
Preserve the original instrument, every page and attachment, filing number, timestamp, receipt, fee, submission method, preparer, signature, notary record, filer account, return address, legal description, property record, indexing, rejection or acceptance notice, correction, release, and communications with the recorder or filing office. A draft, unfiled demand, rejected submission, or private statement may present different issues from a filed lien or encumbrance.
Identify the claimed obligation and falsity
Determine what debt, judgment, contract, assessment, security interest, tax, service, or other obligation purportedly supports the filing. Compare statutes, agreements, invoices, court orders, payments, ownership, authorization, and records. A legally defective lien, disputed debt, mistaken amount, false instrument, and instrument containing a materially false representation are not identical theories.
“Knows or has reason to know” is the culpability language
The State may rely on notices, prior rulings, warnings, communications, repeated filings, legal descriptions, fabricated documents, lack of any transaction, or admissions to prove knowledge or reason to know. The defense may rely on advice, records, mistaken identity, a genuine dispute, reliance on a preparer, ambiguity in property law, correction, or lack of notice. Reliance is not automatically dispositive; it must be evaluated against what the filer knew and the reasonableness and completeness of the information supplied.
Material falsity should be connected to the instrument
The alternative reaches a lien or encumbrance that contains a materially false or fraudulent statement or representation. The State should identify the statement and why it matters to validity, amount, property, priority, debtor, creditor, authorization, or enforceability. A typographical or immaterial error should not be treated as self-proving material fraud.
The repeat enhancement requires two or more qualifying priors
The class rises from A misdemeanor to C felony only when the person previously pleaded guilty or had been convicted under subsection 3 on two or more occasions. The prosecution should prove identity, court, case number, disposition, finality as required, statutory subsection, number of occasions, and timing. Unrelated false filings, civil judgments, dismissed charges, convictions under another statute, and multiple counts from one event require careful statutory analysis rather than assumption.
Screenshots and report summaries can omit decisive context
For a communication case, preserve the original device or account data, native message export, entire thread, attachments, audio, video, voicemail, post, comments, direct messages, headers, timestamps, edits, deletions, login and access records, forwarding approach, screenshots, envelope, handwriting, witness accounts, and recipient’s contemporaneous actions. Do not delete content or contact witnesses to coordinate explanations.
Rule 106 can protect against a misleading excerpt
Completeness may require surrounding portions when a fragment changes meaning. Identify the question, quoted source, earlier disagreement, requested official act, lawful alternatives, qualification, correction, and later response. Completeness is not automatic admission of an entire history; the proponent should explain what additional portion corrects the distortion.
Attribution and authentication are distinct from interpretation
Rules 901 and 902 concern whether evidence is what a party claims. Rule 1001 addresses writings, recordings, photographs, and electronically stored information. An authenticated account can have multiple users; an accurate screenshot can omit messages; a message can be authored by the accused while its meaning remains disputed. Device extraction, subscriber records, IP or access logs, writing style, witnesses, and admissions can bear on attribution.
Government records establish the public role and intended act
Obtain appointment and employment records, job duties, delegation, statutes, regulations, policies, hearing dockets, orders, agendas, minutes, votes, recommendations, correspondence, case assignments, recusals, and decision history. These materials show whether the recipient was a public servant, whether a proceeding was held before that person, what official action existed, and what duty the State claims the speaker tried to corrupt.
Other communications cannot become propensity proof without limits
Rule 404(b) restricts using other acts merely to show character. Earlier contacts may be relevant to meaning, intent, identity, motive, absence of mistake, or a course of conduct, but similarity, time, reliability, notice, purpose, and Rule 403 balancing matter. Lawful complaints and political speech should not be presented as proof of criminal disposition.
Personal knowledge and credibility remain separate
Rule 602 addresses personal knowledge. Rules 607, 608, 609, and 613 address credibility, truthfulness evidence, specified convictions, and prior statements. A recipient’s account, investigator’s paraphrase, intermediary’s memory, and expert interpretation should be compared with the native record. Fear or concern can be relevant context but does not independently prove the statutory intent or objective.
Hearsay layers can appear in relayed threats and filing records
Rule 801 may treat qualifying opposing-party statements as nonhearsay, but a relayed threat can contain several speakers and purposes. Rule 803 may cover qualifying government or business records without resolving every embedded assertion. Certification can authenticate a filing while leaving authorship, falsity, and culpability contested.
Rule 16 discovery should track the charged theory
Seek all statements and recordings; full communications and native data; account and device attribution; warrants and returns; government-role and proceeding records; legal-duty sources; recipient and witness interviews; safety assessments; charging referrals; expert work; lien instruments and filing histories; property records; alleged debt materials; notices and prior rulings; and certified records for every alleged qualifying prior. Request favorable evidence and preservation of transient platform or filing-system data.
Meaning, attribution, intent, public role, proceeding, duty, falsity, and prior record are distinct issues
The communication was not a threat under a fair contextual reading
The statement may be a question, quotation, prediction, hyperbole, criticism, warning of lawful action, artistic expression, political advocacy, or conditional statement not communicating the prohibited harm. The entire exchange and objective circumstances should be evaluated rather than an isolated alarming phrase.
The State cannot attribute the communication to the accused
Shared devices, spoofed accounts, copied posts, anonymous mail, forwarded messages, voice uncertainty, editing, compromised credentials, and third-party access can create attribution issues. The State must prove identity with admissible evidence, not just the displayed account name.
The accused lacked intent to influence official action or duty
Anger, retaliation, intimidation, and influence can overlap factually but are not identical. Subsections 1 and 2 require the specified influence intent. Evidence that the speaker sought an appeal, public debate, lawful complaint, personal distance, or no government action may undermine that inference depending on context.
The proceeding or duty did not fit subsection 1
The proceeding may not have been pending or prospective, judicial or administrative, or held before the threatened public servant. The alleged duty may not exist, may belong to someone else, or may allow discretion rather than require the action the State calls a violation.
The enumerated subsection 2 threat was not proved
The threatened conduct may be lawful; no criminal accusation may have been threatened; or the asserted fact may not tend toward the specified reputational consequences. Even if the words fit one category, the State must still prove intent to influence another’s official action as a public servant.
Constitutional limits protect the charged expression
Apply governing speech doctrine to the words, context, intent, audience, and statute. The defense should explain the protected petitioning, criticism, reporting, or advocacy rather than merely invoke the First Amendment. The prosecution likewise must prove a constitutionally permissible application rather than criminalize disfavored viewpoint.
The lien was valid, authorized, unfiled, or not knowingly false
The instrument may reflect a real obligation, authorized security interest, genuine dispute, mistaken amount, wrong property, or preparer error rather than knowing or reason-to-know falsity. The State should prove filing and the exact false or materially fraudulent representation, while the defense supplies the complete transaction and notice history.
The repeat enhancement lacks qualifying priors
Challenge identity, statutory match, number of occasions, disposition, sequencing, and admissibility. Two unrelated allegations or civil findings do not satisfy the text requiring prior guilty pleas or convictions under subsection 3 on two or more occasions.
The unqualified-recipient provision does not erase other elements
Subsection 4 removes a defense based solely on failure to assume office, lack of jurisdiction, or other inability to act as desired. The State must still prove the charged threat or filing, public-servant objective or property, intent or culpability, and all theory-specific facts.
The charged subsection controls the ceiling
| theory | Classification and current ceiling | What controls |
|---|---|---|
| Subsection 1 threat of harm | Class C felony: up to five years and $10,000 | Proceeding or duty alternative, harm, public servant, and influence intent. |
| Subsection 2 enumerated threat | Class C felony: up to five years and $10,000 | Unlawful conduct, criminal accusation, or reputational exposure plus official-action intent. |
| Subsection 3 false lien, fewer than two qualifying priors | Class A misdemeanor: up to 360 days and $3,000 | Filing, public-servant property, falsity or material falsehood, and culpability. |
| Subsection 3 false lien after two or more qualifying priors | Class C felony: up to five years and $10,000 | Two or more prior pleas or convictions under subsection 3 must be proved. |
| Mandatory incarceration | No offense-specific minimum stated | Other convictions, extended sentencing, or revocation may affect custody. |
| Restitution and collateral issues | Require separate authority and facts | Loss, lien-removal costs, causation, employment, licensing, office, firearms, immigration, and other status-specific law matter. |
The felony ceiling is not an automatic sentence
The court applies sentencing law to the conviction and person. It can consider the seriousness and specificity of the threat, targeted decision, planning, repetition, actual disruption, recipient and public impact, use of intermediaries, lien amount and effect, prior record, other counts, mitigation, acceptance of responsibility, restitution where authorized, and lawful alternatives. The offense section states no mandatory custody term.
Restitution requires an authorized loss theory
A restitution request may concern documented costs or pecuniary loss caused by the offense, but government investigation time, security measures, emotional harm, legal fees, property impairment, and lien-removal expense each require statutory authority, causation, proof, and anti-duplication analysis. The amount written on a false lien is not automatically the restitution amount.
Collateral consequences must be checked individually
A felony or misdemeanor may affect public employment, licensing, officeholding, government access, firearm eligibility under other law, immigration, housing, security clearance, background checks, and future proceedings. An order restricting contact or property filing may arise during the case. None should be promised or treated as automatic without the person’s status, disposition, and controlling law.
History confirms that the filing offense must remain separate
The 1973 Criminal Code enacted the principal threat provisions based on Final Report § 1366. The Study Draft and Final Report distinguish subsection 1’s broad statutory “harm” in specified proceeding or duty settings from subsection 2’s enumerated threats aimed at official action. The commentary describes an offense protecting government integrity while recognizing that ordinary social and political pressure is not automatically within the listed coercive threats.
House Bill 1307 added the false-lien offense in 2015. The introduced proposal was broader; the enacted version focuses on filing a lien or encumbrance against a public servant’s property while knowing or having reason to know of falsity or a materially false or fraudulent representation. The enacted grading uses a class A misdemeanor baseline and a class C felony only after two or more prior subsection 3 pleas or convictions.
Official Pattern Jury Instruction Commission materials in 2016 addressed threatening-harm instructions, and 2017 materials addressed new subsection 3 instructions. Those records help identify instructional history but do not replace enacted elements or appellate authority.
A deliberate search of official North Dakota opinion and court materials did not locate a published North Dakota Supreme Court merits opinion directly construing current § 12.1-12-06 for this draft. That limitation is disclosed rather than filling the gap with federal or out-of-state threat doctrine presented as controlling North Dakota law.
Frequently asked questions
Is insulting or criticizing a public servant enough?
No. The State must prove a charged threat and the theory-specific intent and setting. Protected criticism, petitioning, and advocacy require constitutional respect, while genuine coercive threats may be prosecuted.
Must the threatened harm be physical?
Not under subsection 1. The general definition of harm includes loss, disadvantage, or injury and certain harm to another person whose welfare matters to the affected person.
Does the threatened official act have to occur?
No. The threat theories focus on the threat and intent to influence. The State must still prove the specific public action, proceeding or duty, recipient, and influence intent required by the charged theory.
What if the official lacked authority to do what was requested?
Subsection 4 says lack of qualification, failure to assume office, lack of jurisdiction, or another inability to act as desired is not a defense. Other elements remain.
Can threatening to reveal true information be charged?
Subsection 2(c) expressly says the asserted fact may be true or false. The State must prove the specified reputational tendency and intent to influence official action, subject to constitutional limits.
What must be proved for the false-lien offense?
The State must prove filing a lien or encumbrance against a public servant’s real or personal property and knowledge or reason to know it was false or contained a materially false or fraudulent representation.
When does the lien offense become a felony?
It becomes a class C felony only after two or more prior guilty pleas or convictions under subsection 3. Otherwise the current classification is class A misdemeanor.
What should be preserved first?
Preserve complete native communications and metadata, recordings, surrounding posts, government-role and proceeding records, duty sources, the exact filed lien and attachments, property and debt records, filing history, notices, and certified prior-case records.
A lawyer’s file review of Threatening Public Servants and False Liens in North Dakota
A useful defense analysis starts by slowing the case down. The title of the charge is not an element, and the largest number in a penalty provision is not a prediction. I read the count, the incorporated definitions, and the alleged facts side by side before I tell a client what I think.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
To understand Threatening Public Servants and False Liens in North Dakota, I start with N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-12-06, 12.1-01-04, 12.1-02-02, and 12.1-32-01 and the version of the law in effect on the alleged date. The offense classification sets the outer framework, but it does not tell us what happened or what the state can prove. I then identify every fact that could change the charge or sentence and look for the record, testimony, or forensic evidence that supports—or contradicts—each one.
From there, I build a proof map. For every required element, I identify the witness, recording, document, test result, or admissible inference the prosecution would rely on, then compare that source with the rest of the file. This separates a disputed fact from a search, statement, or admissibility issue and keeps the analysis focused on problems that can actually affect the case.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Threatening Public Servants and False Liens in North Dakota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: the charging paper, every police report, uncut recordings, witness interviews, warrants and returns, device and account records, photographs with metadata, expert or laboratory material, certified prior records, court orders, and any document the prosecution relies on to prove an element or increase the classification. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that, on a sufficiency challenge, “we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s burden at trial. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the point it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.