State v. Majetic, 901 N.W.2d 356

Defendant Ale Majetic was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition based on allegations of repeated sexual contact and penetration of two minors between 2011 and 2015.
Majetic denied the allegations and argued the complainants fabricated them; he relied in part on normal medical exams to challenge the abuse claims.
After jurors were selected and sworn in May 2016, the court repeatedly admonished the jury not to discuss the case, follow media, or form opinions; a 56-day continuance was granted so defense could obtain an expert response to the State’s late-disclosed expert.
On reconvening in July, the court asked whether any juror had discussed the case; there was no response and the court reread preliminary instructions.
During trial the bailiff reported jurors were concerned about encountering Majetic or his family, and that a couple of jurors felt overwhelmed by defense counsel’s questioning; the court placed these reports on the record but did not further question jurors.
Majetic was convicted on both counts and appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to inquire into juror impartiality after the long continuance and juror statements, and (2) the court improperly commented on the defense expert’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by not further questioning jurors after a 56‑day continuance and reports to the bailiff	State: trial complied with admonition rules; no further inquiry required	Majetic: court had duty to ask if jurors formed opinions or were influenced by media after long recess and juror comments	No obvious error; preliminary instructions and reconvening inquiry were sufficient; no further inquiry required
Whether juror statements to bailiff required remedial action	State: nothing showing bias or discussion occurred	Majetic: jurors’ wish to avoid defendant/family and being "overwhelmed" implies juror discussion and bias	Record insufficient to show juror bias or that statements amounted to partiality; no plain error shown
Whether the court’s on‑the‑record comment about defense expert constituted bias or abused discretion	State: court comment merely clarified role of medical experts vs legal determinations	Majetic: court’s comment undermined defense expert and showed bias	Held no abuse: comment clarified limits of expert testimony, did not disparage or discredit expert, and fell within judge’s discretion
Whether forfeited objections merit reversal under plain‑error rule	State: issues unpreserved; reversal requires clear, prejudicial deviation from law	Majetic: argues obvious error affecting substantial rights	Court applied Olano/Olander framework and found no clear deviation or prejudice; affirmed

State v. Newman, 738 N.W.2d 887 (N.D. 2007) (jury admonition requirements and impartial jury principle)
State v. Myers, 724 N.W.2d 168 (N.D. 2006) (court duty to admonish jurors upon adjournment)
State v. Tresenriter, 823 N.W.2d 774 (N.D. 2012) (preservation rule and limits on appellate review of unpreserved issues)
State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (adoption of Olano plain‑error framework)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved errors)
State v. Bilbrey, 349 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1984) (trial judge’s latitude to comment and manage trial, provided no bias shown)