State v. Thompson

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Jennifer Jean Sandvig Thompson's conviction for simple assault upon a family or household member. The court held that testimony and a photograph concerning text messages were properly admitted as relevant, sufficiently authenticated, non-hearsay party statements, and proper impeachment evidence, while remanding solely to correct a clerical error in the criminal judgment.

Holdings

1. The text messages were relevant because they helped explain Thompson's state of mind and the circumstances of the events, and they could help prove or disprove facts relating to the assault charge and her self-defense claim.
2. The complainant's testimony and the surrounding circumstances provided sufficient authentication for testimony about text messages received from Thompson's phone.
3. Thompson failed to preserve her foundation objection to the complainant's testimony because she did not renew the objection when the testimony was offered at trial.
4. Subject to proper authentication, text messages sent from Thompson's phone constituted Thompson's own statements and were not hearsay under N.D.R.Ev. 801(d)(2)(i).
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the picture of the threatening text message for impeachment after Thompson equivocated about whether she sent it and the State supplied additional foundation.
6. The judgment was affirmed, but the case was remanded for correction of the clerical error stating that the judgment was entered upon a guilty plea rather than following the jury verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether testimony about text messages received by the complainant was relevant and admissible.
2. Whether the State provided sufficient foundation to authenticate testimony about the text messages and a picture of one message.
3. Whether the text-message evidence was inadmissible hearsay.
4. Whether the picture of the threatening text message was improperly admitted for impeachment.
5. Whether the foundation objection to the complainant's testimony was preserved for appellate review.
6. Whether the criminal judgment required remand because it incorrectly stated that the conviction was based on a guilty plea.

Disposition

affirmed