State v. Ripley

Summary

This North Dakota Supreme Court opinion addresses Gary Ripley’s appeal from convictions for sexual assault and abuse or neglect of a child. The court upheld the denial of continuances and appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, held any failure to admonish the jury was harmless, and found the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue waived. The judgment was affirmed.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ripley's motion for a continuance and motion to reconsider because the requested delay was not promptly sought, prior delays were attributable in part to Ripley, and Ripley did not identify specific prejudice or unusual preparation needs.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appointed counsel's motion to withdraw because Ripley failed to establish good cause for substitution and granting withdrawal would have left replacement counsel with even less preparation time.
3. Even assuming the district court erred by failing to admonish the jurors not to discuss the case or form opinions before deliberations, the error was harmless and did not warrant reversal because Ripley did not object, claim prejudice, or show that substantial rights were affected.
4. Ripley waived his sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue by presenting only the standard of review and no supporting law, argument, or identification of an evidentiary deficiency.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Ripley's motion for a continuance and motion to reconsider.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointed counsel's motion to withdraw shortly before trial.
3. Whether the district court's failure to admonish jurors before a recess constituted reversible error.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Ripley's convictions.
5. Whether Ripley waived his sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument by failing to provide supporting argument or authority.

Disposition

affirmed