State v. Kovalevich
2015 ND 11
| N.D. | 2015Background
- Kovalevich was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of corruption of a minor for a sexual act with a minor at a Grand Forks hotel.
- At trial, Canad Inns reservation records and a registration document were admitted or discussed; some documents were not disclosed during discovery.
- Ramada Plaza receipts for Kovalevich’s stays were provided during trial but not admitted as evidence.
- A juror-verdict poll occurred; Kovalevich sought to question jurors about potential influence but was initially denied.
- Kovalevich moved for a new trial (N.D.R.Crim.P. 33) and later for dismissal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 after new discovery; both motions were denied.
- The district court ultimately entered a judgment of guilty on all counts; Kovalevich appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of a new trial was proper | Kovalevich argues errors warranted a new trial on discovery and evidentiary grounds | Kovalevich contends the district court abused its discretion | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether post-trial dismissal under Rule 16 was proper | Kovalevich asserts discovery violations require dismissal | State asserts Rule 16 has no post-trial dismissal remedy and issues were not properly raised | District court did not err; dismissal not warranted under Rule 16 |
| Whether the court properly handled jury-impeachment under Rule 606(b) | Kovalevich sought to question jurors about extraneous evidence (registration documents) | Court limited juror inquiry to prevent impermissible delibration analysis | Court did not abuse discretion; juror testimony about deliberations barred |
| Whether evidentiary rulings on exhibits and other evidence were proper | Kovalevich challenges admission of residence searches and other exhibits | State argues exhibit foundation was sufficient and objections lacked specificity | District court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blunt, 2011 ND 127 (ND 2011) (post-trial motions and discovery issues governed by Rule 33/16 (analysis on appeal))
- State v. Yarbro, 2014 ND 164 (ND 2014) (new trial grounds limited to grounds raised in motion for new trial)
- State v. Hidanovic, 2008 ND 66 (ND 2008) (juror misconduct and Rule 606(b) considerations)
- State v. Weisz, 2002 ND 207 (ND 2002) (extraneous prejudicial information and juror proceedings)