Bendish v. Castillo
2012 ND 30
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Doll and Chapin were charged in Burleigh County with gross sexual imposition involving a person under 15.
- The district court joined their trials and denied Doll’s severance motion.
- Witness sequestration was ordered; witnesses were excluded, but the State’s disclosure allegedly violated sequestration.
- Trial included testimony from the alleged victim and a observing sexual assault nurse, plus DNA and other evidence.
- The jury found both Doll and Chapin guilty; Doll appeals asserting severance error, prejudice from nurse testimony, mistrial denial, and insufficient evidence.
- The Supreme Court affirmatively upheld the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying severance? | Doll argues joinder prejudiced him. | State contends no preserved error or prejudice. | No abuse; no obvious error; severance denied. |
| Was the observing sexual assault nurse testimony unfairly prejudicial? | Doll claims improper bolstering and prejudice. | State argues testimony was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. | Not an obvious error; testimony admissible and probative. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying mistrial after sequestration violation? | Doll asserts violation of sequestration requiring mistrial. | State argues no influence on witness; mistrial not warranted. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? | Evidence unreliable; credibility issues with the victim. | DNA and corroborating testimony support guilt. | Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (principle on non-testifying codefendant statements in joint trials)
- Nelson v. O'Neil, 402 U.S. 622 (U.S. 1971) (limits Bruton to unavailable declarants and confrontation)
- State v. Dymowski, 459 N.W.2d 777 (N.D. 1990) (severance considerations under Rule 14; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Bingaman, 2002 ND 202, 655 N.W.2d 51 (N.D. 2002) (preservation and review of severance issues; plain error/exceptional circumstances)
- State v. Skarsgard, 2007 ND 160, 739 N.W.2d 786 (N.D. 2007) (mistrial and discretion standard in trial rulings)
- State v. Buchholz, 2004 ND 77, 678 N.W.2d 144 (N.D. 2004) (sequestration rules; scope of order; out-of-court communications)