Summary
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Terry Ramsey’s conviction for gross sexual imposition. The court held that the victim’s out-of-court statements were admissible as prior consistent statements and that evidence of a subsequent Florida incident was admissible under the applicable other-acts and balancing rules. The court also rejected Ramsey’s confrontation and prior-sexual-abuse evidence arguments because the latter theory was not preserved for appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether admission of Jane's out-of-court statements through her mother, aunt, and Florida law-enforcement personnel was reversible error under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24), or was otherwise admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 801(d)(1)(ii).
- Whether evidence of Ramsey's subsequent contact with Jane in Florida was inadmissible propensity evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) and unfairly prejudicial under N.D.R.Ev. 403.
- Whether exclusion of evidence concerning Jane's prior sexual abuse violated Ramsey's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses or required admission under N.D.R.Ev. 412(b)(3).
Holdings
- The statements Jane made to her mother, aunt, a Florida deputy sheriff, and a Florida sex-offender and child-abuse investigator were properly admitted as substantive evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 801(d)(1)(ii), because Jane testified and was subject to cross-examination, and Ramsey's trial defense charged or implied that her allegations were fabricated because of improper influence or motive.
- The Florida contact was admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) for permissible non-propensity purposes, including plan and absence of mistake or accident, and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under N.D.R.Ev. 403.
- The court did not reach the merits of Ramsey's current Confrontation Clause and Rule 412 argument because the argument presented on appeal differed from the argument presented to the trial court and therefore was not preserved.
Key quotations
“A proper determination of whether to admit evidence under one of the Rule 404(b) exceptions should include the following three-step analysis: 1) the purpose for which evidence is introduced, 2) the evidence of the prior act or acts must be substantially reliable or "clear and convincing," and, 3) in criminal cases, there must be proof of the crime charged which permits the trier of fact to establish the defendant's guilt or innocence independently on the evidence presented, without consideration of the evidence of the prior acts.” (at 505)
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” (at 506)
Factual background
Ramsey's ten-year-old niece, identified as Jane, spent time with Ramsey and his family in North Dakota and later traveled with them to Florida. In Florida, Ramsey's wife discovered him touching Jane in a locked bathroom, and Jane subsequently reported that Ramsey had touched her breasts and vagina on multiple occasions in North Dakota. Authorities were notified, Ramsey was arrested, and the State prosecuted him for gross sexual imposition.
Procedural history
Ramsey was arrested in North Dakota after allegations concerning sexual contact with a child were reported to authorities in Florida and North Dakota. He initially entered into a written plea agreement but later refused to plead guilty, and the case proceeded to a December 2003 jury trial. The trial court admitted testimony concerning the child's out-of-court statements and evidence of a later Florida incident, excluded evidence of the child's prior sexual abuse, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.