State v. Doll, 812 N.W.2d 381

Doll and Chapin were charged with gross sexual imposition of a person under fifteen and tried jointly after a severance motion was denied.
A 14-year-old girl ran away; Doll allegedly had sexual contact with her at his residence; police arranged to meet, and she was placed in custody and taken for a sexual assault examination.
The trial included testimony from the girl and a sexual assault nurse on day one, and additional testimony from the observing nurse and two police officers on day two; a DNA sheet analysis was introduced later.
During cross-examination, Chapin questioned Officer Betz about ejaculation; a bench conference occurred and the State’s attorney disclosed Chapin’s statement to Betz.
The district court denied a motion for mistrial and denied severance; conviction followed after the jury heard DNA and witness testimony.
The court analyzed Bruton/Nelson issues, sequestration rules, evidentiary objections, and the sufficiency of the evidence to affirm the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Severance and joinder	Doll argues severance was required due to Chapin's statements.	Doll argues joint trial prejudiced him and evidence would be inadmissible if severed.	No reversible error; no clear prejudice shown; severance denied.
Confrontation rights with codefendant statements	Severance would exclude Chapin’s statements that implicated Doll.	Bruton concerns apply; impeachment concerns if Chapin testified.	Confrontation rights not violated because Chapin testified; Bruton not triggered.
Mistrial/sequestration violation	State violated sequestration by discussing testimony with Betz.	Mistrial warranted due to prejudice from sequestration violation.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied; statements did not influence Betz.
Admission of observing nurse testimony	Observing nurse’s testimony aided credibility and established protocol.	Testimony was unfairly prejudicial or improper.	Not clearly erroneous; testimony relevant and properly grounded.
Sufficiency of the evidence	DNA and multiple witness testimonies establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Girl’s testimony unreliable; insufficient to sustain conviction.	Evidence sufficient; reasonable inferences support guilt.

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (confirming confrontation limitations for nontestifying codefendant statements)
Nelson v. O’Neil, 402 U.S. 622 (1971) (Bruton limits apply only where declarant unavailable for cross-examination)
State v. Dymowski, 459 N.W.2d 777 (N.D.1990) (severance aligned with avoiding prejudice and promoting efficiency)
State v. Bingaman, 2002 ND 202, 655 N.W.2d 51 (N.D.2002) (preservation and review standards for severance objections)
State v. Buchholz, 2004 ND 77, 678 N.W.2d 144 (N.D.2004) (sequestration scope and evidentiary impact on witnesses)
State v. Skarsgard, 2007 ND 160, 739 N.W.2d 786 (N.D.2007) (mistrial standard and discretion of trial courts)