The North Dakota Supreme Court has unanimously upheld a Mandan man's convictions for attempted murder and reckless endangerment.

Kelly Frohlich was convicted by a jury of the two felonies in March 2006.

Authorities said Frohlich crashed his car into a van at a Bismarck intersection on Aug. 25, 2005, because he was angry with his girlfriend, who was a passenger in the car.

They said Frohlich had been aiming for a fuel-hauling semitrailer, but missed and hit the van instead. No one was seriously hurt.

South Central District Judge Donald Jorgensen sentenced Frohlich to 20 years in prison with 10 years suspended for the attempted murder conviction and five years in prison with 2½ years suspended for reckless endangerment in May 2006. The two sentences are being served consecutively.

Frohlich appealed the convictions to the state high court because he believed he should have been granted a continuance before trial, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, that the state should not have been allowed to change the language of his charge before trial and that needless testimony was allowed.

Frohlich requested a continuance before his trial because he believed the attorney who represented him at trial, Ralph Vinje, would not cross-examine the victim in the case as aggressively as he would another witness. Vinje represented the victim in a December 2005 drug case.

Frohlich wanted more time before trial so he could substitute Steven Balaban, who handled his appeal, as his attorney. The district court denied the request, saying Frohlich could have a different attorney cross-examine the victim.

The Supreme Court ruled that the district court did not make a mistake in giving Frohlich the option of involving a different attorney in the case rather than grant a continuance.

"On March 1, 2006, the district court offered Frohlich the remedy of having a different attorney cross-examine the victim; however, for reasons not in the record, Frohlich did not avail himself of that remedy,"wrote Justice Dale Sandstrom.

Frohlich argued that too much of the same sort of testimony was allowed at trial. Numerous law enforcement and medical personnel testified about Frohlich's comments and demeanor following the crash.

The justices decided the testimony did not prejudice the jury against Frohlich.

"Considering the variety of sources, the time at which they perceived or obtained their information about Frohlich, and their differing roles in this case, the district court did not commit obvious error by allowing several witnesses to testify,"Sandstrom wrote.

The justices also found that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Frohlich guilty and that Frohlich did not need more time to prepare for trial because of a wording change made to the charges against him two weeks before his trial.

(Reach reporter Jenny Michael at 250-8225 or jenny.michael@;bismarcktribune.com.)