State v. Archambault, 982 N.W.2d 8

Zachary Archambault was charged (Nov. 5, 2020) with continuous sexual abuse of a child; a four‑day jury trial began June 28, 2021.
On the second day (June 29), the State disclosed a previously unproduced Child Advocacy Center (CAC) interview recording of the victim; defense had earlier sought such materials.
The jury had already viewed a three‑hour police interview in which Archambault, after a Miranda waiver, admitted sexual conduct with the victim.
The CAC recording showed the victim “shut down” and offered no substantive inculpatory statements; the State asserted non‑disclosure was not in bad faith.
Archambault moved for a mistrial and dismissal; the court denied those requests, granted a partial‑day continuance, and offered remedies (play the CAC interview to the jury, allow recross‑examination).
The judge made an ill‑advised, out‑of‑jury remark about the difficulty of overcoming the defendant’s confession; Archambault renewed his mistrial motion and appealed after conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a continuance instead of declaring a mistrial for the State’s discovery violation	The State argued the undisclosed CAC interview lacked relevant evidence, non‑disclosure was not in bad faith, and a continuance was the least severe, appropriate remedy	Archambault argued the discovery violation prejudiced his trial preparation and required a mistrial	Court affirmed: continuance was a reasonable, least‑severe sanction; no abuse of discretion
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on alleged judicial bias from a judge’s out‑of‑jury statement	State argued the remark was made outside jurors’ presence, reflected difficulty overcoming the confession, and did not show bias affecting the trial	Archambault argued the judge’s statement indicated bias and required mistrial	Court affirmed: remark was ill‑advised but not evidence of bias or a fundamental defect; denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion

State v. Kolstad, 942 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 2020) (district court should impose least severe sanction to remedy discovery prejudice)
State v. Pailing, 936 N.W.2d 78 (N.D. 2019) (mistrial is an extreme remedy; review of denial for abuse of discretion)
Lund v. Lund, 795 N.W.2d 318 (N.D. 2011) (judicial impartiality is presumed; recusal or mistrial not required for vague charges of bias)