State v. Carlson, 2016 ND 130

Defendant Brandon Carlson was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition after T.P. and S.S. alleged nonconsensual sexual acts occurred while they slept.
The State amended the information one day before trial to broaden the allegation against T.P. from penile vaginal intercourse to penetration of her vulva with his penis or another body part; Carlson objected as prejudicial and untimely.
The district court allowed the amendment, concluding discovery (including text messages produced earlier) gave Carlson adequate notice.
The court precluded evidence of Carlson’s prior sexual history with other women, but S.S. testified about a text in which Carlson apologized and said how he "wakes females up," prompting an objection; the court sustained the objection and gave a curative instruction instead of granting a mistrial.
The State introduced forensic reports of extracted text-message exchanges; Carlson objected on foundation and hearsay grounds. The court admitted the reports; Carlson was convicted on both counts.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) amendment was permissible without prejudice, (2) a curative instruction was adequate remedy for the prior-bad-acts reference, and (3) any error admitting the text-message reports was harmless because the content was cumulative of witness testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion by allowing the State to amend the information one day before trial	Amendment was proper; discovery gave notice of the alleged alternative penetration	Amendment prejudiced Carlson by depriving him time to prepare for different charged conduct	No abuse; discovery (including defendant’s texts) gave adequate notice and defendant showed no specific prejudice
Whether a mistrial was required after S.S. mentioned prior bad-act text	Curative instruction sufficed to cure any prejudice	Statement invited prejudice and required mistrial	No mistrial; curative instruction adequate and presumed followed by jury
Whether text-message extraction reports were admitted without proper authentication	Reports were admissible and provided context	Reports lacked foundation and contained hearsay	Assuming error, admission was harmless because reports were cumulative of testimony
Whether any erroneous evidentiary rulings affected Carlson’s substantial rights	State argues any errors were harmless given the record	Defendant contends errors were prejudicial and affected outcome	Harmless-error review: no substantial rights affected; conviction affirmed

State v. Hammer, 787 N.W.2d 716 (N.D. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for amending information)
State v. Bertram, 708 N.W.2d 913 (N.D. 2006) (information must fairly inform defendant to prepare for trial)
State v. Lang, 865 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 2015) (mistrial standard: fundamental defect producing manifest injustice)
State v. Hernandez, 707 N.W.2d 449 (N.D. 2005) (curative instructions generally remove improper prejudice)
State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010) (authentication rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Kelly, 631 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2001) (cumulative erroneously admitted evidence is harmless)