State v. Kovalevich

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Sean Michael Kovalevich’s criminal judgment for gross sexual imposition and corruption of a minor. The Court held that his post-trial motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 was procedurally improper because discovery violations had to be raised through a motion for a new trial. The Court also held that juror inquiry concerning the effect of trial testimony on deliberations was barred by N.D.R.Ev. 606(b), and rejected his challenges to various evidentiary rulings.

Holdings

1. Rule 16 governs criminal discovery before and during trial and does not authorize a post-trial motion to dismiss. Post-trial claims concerning alleged discovery violations must be raised through a procedure authorized by the Criminal Rules, such as a motion for a new trial under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.
2. Juror testimony may be used to establish that extraneous prejudicial information reached the jury or that an improper outside influence occurred, but jurors may not testify about the effect of that information on the verdict, their mental processes, or deliberations. Because the challenged information was trial testimony already known to the parties, questioning jurors about whether they considered it would impermissibly seek evidence of the effect of the alleged misconduct.
3. A motion for a new trial must specify alleged defects and errors with particularity, and courts need not consider arguments that are inadequately articulated, supported, or briefed. General assertions concerning unspecified exhibits or hundreds of exhibits do not preserve the evidentiary claims for relief.
4. The challenged items were not excluded by N.D.R.Ev. 404 because the victim testified that the items were with Kovalevich in Grand Forks when the charged crime occurred; the evidence was therefore evidence of the crime itself rather than inadmissible character evidence offered to prove conduct in conformity with a character trait.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by denying a post-trial motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 based on alleged discovery violations.
2. Whether Kovalevich could impeach the jury or question jurors about whether they considered testimony concerning hotel registration documents in reaching the verdict.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion for a new trial that challenged the foundation, relevance, prejudice, and character-evidence rulings without identifying the specific exhibits or adequately stating the grounds.
4. Whether evidence consisting of lubricant, handcuffs, and a whip was inadmissible character or prior-acts evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 404.

Disposition

affirmed