Brandvold v. Lewis and Clark Public School District, 2011 ND 185

Vondal was charged with aggravated assault against his sister, B.V., and, separately, with continuous sexual abuse of a child based on acts toward B.V. from 2000 to 2009 while she was under 15.
The district court joined the two prosecutions and later granted the State’s in limine order prohibiting arguments/ evidence that Vondal should not be held responsible because the acts occurred when he was a minor.
Vondal did not oppose the in limine ruling or plan to argue his age as a defense; a jury trial proceeded and he was convicted on both counts.
On appeal, Vondal challenges the adult prosecution for acts alleged to have occurred before age 14, claims prosecutorial misconduct, asserts confrontation-rights concerns over excluded testimony, and contends the evidence is insufficient.
The Court affirms the judgments, addressing each challenge in turn and concluding no reversible error occurred.
The State introduced testimony about several acts toward B.V. and police testified to injuries consistent with B.V.’s account of the assault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecuting as an adult for acts before age 14	Vondal argues § 12.1-04-01 bars adult prosecution for pre-14 acts.	Vondal contends the acts occurred before 14 and should be barred from adult prosecution; evidence of earlier acts should be excluded.	Not applicable; no obvious error; statute not applied to bar prosecution.
Prosecutorial misconduct and due process	State allegedly engaged in blame-minimize-deny themes and improper closing, etc.	Vondal asserts multiple misconduct instances deprived fair trial.	No prosecutorial misconduct that deprived due process; no obvious error.
Confrontation and excluded testimony on victim's state of mind	N/A	Exclusion of testimony on B.V.’s state of mind violated Sixth Amendment rights.	Not violated; court properly limited cross-examination and evidence; rights preserved.
Sufficiency of the evidence	State presented sufficient testimony of assault and continuous sexual abuse.	Insufficient evidence to sustain convictions.	Sufficient evidence supports both aggravated assault and continuous sexual abuse convictions.

State v. Keller, 550 N.W.2d 411 (N.D. 1996) (obvious-error rule limitations; preserved issues)
State v. Woehlhoff, 540 N.W.2d 162 (N.D. 1995) (exceptional circumstances for obvious error)
State v. Evans, 1999 ND 70, 593 N.W.2d 336 (N.D. 1999) (scope of obvious error after misconduct found)
State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25, 606 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2000) (misconduct analysis; substantial rights focus)
State v. Ness, 2009 ND 182, 774 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 2009) (confrontation-rights and cross-examination discretion)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (cross-examination breadth vs. confrontation rights)
State v. Addai, 2010 ND 29, 778 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 2010) (issues not raised preserved unless obvious error)
John v. State, 291 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. 1980) (definition of continuing offenses)