Summary
This North Dakota Supreme Court per curiam opinion addresses an appeal by Marko Ruot following his criminal conviction for child abuse. Ruot challenged the admission of testimony regarding the removal of the victim's pants and a law enforcement officer's reference to a 911 call, arguing improper admission and lack of preservation. The court found that Ruot failed to properly preserve the evidentiary objections or raise them as obvious error, and summarily affirmed the district court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ruot preserved for appeal his challenge to testimony by the victim and the victim’s sister concerning removal of the victim’s pants, or demonstrated obvious error.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in allowing law enforcement testimony concerning a 911 emergency call after sustaining Ruot’s hearsay objection.
Holdings
- Ruot failed to properly preserve his challenge for appeal and did not brief obvious error; the Court therefore declined to provide relief on that issue.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in addressing the challenged testimony, and the judgment was summarily affirmed.
Key quotations
“This Court “need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant’s burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”” (¶ 2)
Factual background
A jury convicted Marko Ruot of child abuse. On appeal, he challenged testimony by the victim and the victim’s sister concerning removal of the victim’s pants, as well as testimony by a law enforcement officer concerning a 911 emergency call referring to that event. The district court sustained Ruot’s hearsay objection to the officer’s testimony, and the 911 call had already been admitted into evidence.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Ruot of child abuse in the District Court of Grand Forks County. The North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7) and (a)(4).