930 N.W.2d 156
N.D.2019Background
- In 2009–2010 Lyons lived with the complainant (age 13–14) and her mother; alleged sexual contact occurred in Arvilla (2009) and Grand Forks (2010).
- Complaints: in Arvilla the complainant said she woke with her shirt pulled up and photos taken; in Grand Forks she alleged Lyons sedated her with pills to clean her ears and then touched and penetrated her (digital and penile) and forced oral contact.
- A 2009–2010 social services probe occurred but produced no charges; investigation reopened in 2016 after similar allegations by a Minnesota complainant.
- State charged four counts of gross sexual imposition; Count I (Arvilla) was dismissed pretrial; trial resulted in conviction on Count II (digital contact with vulva in Jan 2010) and acquittal on Counts III–IV (penile-vulva and penile-mouth).
- District court excluded testimony from the Minnesota complainant under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b); defense moved for judgment of acquittal and later objected to certain inadmissible testimony from a witness; the court struck the statements and gave curative instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support gross sexual imposition (victim <15; sexual act) | The complainant’s testimony and corroborating testimony (sleeping pills; friend’s statement) suffice to support conviction | Evidence was insufficient to prove a sexual act with a victim under 15 beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, competent evidence supported jury verdict (uncorroborated victim testimony can suffice) |
| Whether district court plainly erred by not granting a mistrial after prohibited testimony was heard | The court’s striking of testimony and admonitions cured any prejudice; no mistrial required | Repeated prohibited testimony (explicit insertion and ‘‘does this in his sleep’’) prejudiced Lyons and required mistrial | Affirmed: no plain error—court struck the testimony, gave curative instructions, defense accepted admonition; mistrial unnecessary absent exceptional prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Igou, 691 N.W.2d 213 (N.D. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Schill, 406 N.W.2d 660 (N.D. 1987) (uncorroborated sexual-assault victim testimony can support conviction)
- State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (plain-error/obvious-error framework and prejudice burden)
- State v. Carlson, 881 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 2016) (mistrial is extreme remedy; curative instruction generally suffices)