State v. Campbell, 2017 ND 246

Background

Victim Shannon Brunelle was found dead in a garage on Sept. 15, 2014, with multiple stab wounds and blunt-force trauma; Campbell was one of the last seen with him.
Police arrested Anthony Campbell; Campbell’s DNA was found in bloody shoes and on a broken golf club recovered from the scene.
Campbell testified he was not involved and retained private-investigator expert Ross Rolshoven.
Rolshoven testified as an expert on private investigations, opining there were at least two assailants and suggesting third‑party involvement; the trial court sustained some State objections to portions of his testimony as invading the jury’s province or as relying on facts not in evidence.
The parties stipulated to admission of a Facebook conversation from Sept. 15, 2014; Campbell testified about being accused of burglarizing his ex‑girlfriend’s home, and in rebuttal the State elicited testimony that Campbell stole her phone.
After a seven-day jury trial Campbell was convicted of murder; he appealed challenging the exclusion of portions of his expert’s testimony and the admission of the prior‑act evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert opinions (scope of testimony)	State argued objections to portions of Rolshoven’s testimony were proper because they invaded the jury’s province or relied on facts not in evidence.	Campbell argued the court should have allowed Rolshoven to give all of his opinions about the murder (including gang involvement and other factual theories).	Court affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion; it allowed expert on private investigations to testify but properly sustained objections to testimony that invaded the jury’s role or relied on facts not in evidence.
Expert opinion that the murder was gang‑ or drug‑related	State objected: no evidence of gang involvement; improper opinion.	Campbell sought to present expert inference that the crime appeared gang/drug related.	Court affirmed exclusion of that portion as beyond permissible expert opinion.
Expert testimony about an earlier attack on victim	State objected that Rolshoven testified to facts not in evidence.	Campbell argued the expert could relate investigative opinions including prior attacks.	Court affirmed sustaining objection; portions based on unproven factual assertions were properly excluded.
Admission of prior bad act (alleged burglary/phone theft)	State contended rebuttal testimony about the alleged burglary was admissible because Campbell opened the door by testifying about being accused.	Campbell argued the evidence was improper 404(b) character evidence.	Court affirmed admission: parties stipulated to the Facebook messages; Campbell’s testimony opened the door and the rebuttal evidence was admissible with a limiting instruction.

Key Cases Cited

Matter of O.H.W., 775 N.W.2d 73 (2009 ND) (standard of review for expert testimony — abuse of discretion)
Larson v. Larson, 878 N.W.2d 54 (2016 ND) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Roe, 846 N.W.2d 707 (2014 ND) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Hernandez, 707 N.W.2d 449 (2005 ND) (when inadmissible evidence may be allowed after opposing party opens the door)