State v. Muhle, 2007 ND 131

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Shannon Muhle's convictions for gross sexual imposition and abuse or neglect of a child. The court held that the children's prior out-of-court statements were properly admitted under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24), that admission of the statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the children testified and were cross-examined, and that the State did not violate discovery rules concerning unrecorded witness preparation. The court also concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that unobjected-to closing-argument statements did not constitute obvious error.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting S.M.'s and K.E.'s prior out-of-court statements under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24), because the statements had sufficient particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and both children testified and were available for cross-examination.
2. The State did not violate N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 by failing to disclose the substance of an unrecorded witness-preparation session, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Muhle's motion for a mistrial.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support Muhle's convictions for gross sexual imposition and abuse or neglect of a child.
4. The alleged error in the State's closing argument did not warrant reversal because Muhle did not object at trial and did not establish obvious error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly admitted the children's prior out-of-court statements under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24) and the Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the State violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 by failing to disclose information obtained during an unrecorded pretrial witness-preparation session and whether the district court should have granted a mistrial.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported Muhle's convictions for gross sexual imposition and abuse or neglect of a child.
4. Whether allegedly prejudicial statements in the State's closing argument required reversal despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection.

Disposition

affirmed