Locken v. Locken
2011 ND 90
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Duncan was charged with simple assault-domestic violence, terrorizing with a gun, and intentionally interfering with an emergency call (Feb 2010).
- Trial occurred July 14, 2010; Barbara Duncan, his wife, testified but refused to answer questions about Feb 6 events, and was held in contempt.
- The court admitted an audio recording of Barbara Duncan’s 911 call as excited utterance/present sense impression; law enforcement testimony on statements was limited.
- Jury convicted Duncan on all three counts, and judgment was entered.
- Duncan appealed asserting prosecutorial misconduct and violation of due process; the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 911-call recording admission prosecutorial misconduct? | Duncan; confrontation-clause concerns render the recording inappropriate | Duncan; state’s use of the 911 call violated due process and confrontation | No reversible misconduct; due process not violated |
| Did officers’ testimony about Barbara’s statements unlawfully penetrate admissibility rulings? | Duncan; testimony violated ruling excluding statements | Duncan; no prejudice from limited testimony | No reversible error; no substantial prejudice |
| Were opening/closing statements and inflammatory language prejudicial to Duncan? | Duncan; improper comments inflamed jury | Duncan; isolated comments do not render trial unfair | Not reversible; no due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kruckenberg, 2008 ND 212 (ND) (prejudice test for prosecutorial misconduct in criminal trials)
- State v. Burke, 2000 ND 25 (ND) (noticeable prejudicial error requires exceptional circumstances)
- State v. Evans, 1999 ND 70 (ND) (improper prosecutorial comments weighed against due process)
- Aguero v. State, 2010 ND 210 (ND) (de novo review for constitutional violation in prosecutorial misconduct)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial hearsay rules apply)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (non-testimonial 911 statements may not trigger confrontation clause)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (updates to confrontation clause interpretation under evolving testimonial analysis)
- State v. Paulson, 477 N.W.2d 208 (ND 1991) (prosecutorial conduct viewed in light of entire trial)