State v. Campbell

2017 ND 246 (2017) · Supreme Court of North Dakota · October 17, 2017 · No. 20160197

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Anthony Leon Campbell’s murder conviction. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting expert testimony and admitting evidence concerning an alleged prior burglary after Campbell opened the door to that evidence.

Court
Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the Court
Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chief Justice; Jerod E. Tufte; Jon J. Jensen; Lisa Fair McEvers; Daniel J. Crothers
Jurisdiction
North Dakota
Decision date
October 17, 2017
Docket number
20160197
Procedural posture
Campbell appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder.
Standard of review
The district court's rulings concerning expert witness testimony and other evidentiary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unconscionably, misinterprets or misapplies the law, or fails to exercise a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision.
Precedential value
Published North Dakota Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Anthony Leon Campbell v. State of North Dakota
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

expert testimonycharacter evidenceevidencestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureevidenceappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting the testimony of Campbell's expert witness concerning the murder, alleged gang involvement, an earlier attack, and possible third-party involvement.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting rebuttal evidence of Campbell's alleged prior burglary after Campbell opened the door to that subject through his testimony.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining objections to portions of Rolshoven's testimony and by allowing him to testify about the investigation, his opinion that at least two assailants were involved, and possible third-party involvement while excluding statements based on facts not in evidence or matters invading the province of the jury.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Campbell's former girlfriend to testify in rebuttal about the alleged burglary because Campbell opened the door to that subject through his own testimony, and the court gave a limiting instruction.

Key quotations

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. (¶ 7)
Evidence has been introduced of another criminal act alleged to have been committed by the Defendant. Such evidence may not be considered by you as proof of the Defendant’s character. You should give such evidence the weight you feel it deserves. (¶ 14)

Factual background

Shannon Brunelle was found dead in a garage stall after suffering seven lethal stab wounds and being beaten with a golf club. Campbell was one of the last people seen with Brunelle, and Campbell's DNA was found inside bloody athletic shoes and on the broken golf club. At trial, Campbell denied involvement, and his defense expert, private investigator Ross Rolshoven, offered opinions about the number of assailants, the police investigation, and possible third-party involvement. The State also presented rebuttal testimony from Campbell's former girlfriend concerning an alleged burglary after Campbell testified about being accused of burglarizing her home.

Procedural history

The case came to the North Dakota Supreme Court from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District. After a seven-day jury trial, the district court entered judgment following Campbell's murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, upholding the district court's evidentiary rulings concerning expert testimony and prior bad acts.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…