State v. Middleton, 820 N.W.2d 738

Middleton was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child and corruption of a minor.
He moved to obtain the victim’s medical records; the district court denied the request as privileged/confidential.
During closing, the State showed the jury photographs of the victim spanning the years of alleged abuse; Middleton objected and the court overruled.
Post-trial, Middleton moved for a new trial under Rule 33 arguing the interest of justice; the district court denied for lack of specific defects.
On appeal, Middleton contends (1) denial of records, (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and (3) admissibility/ undisclosed photos; the State argues issues were not properly preserved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of appellate issues	Middleton argues issues were preserved via the Rule 33 motion.	State contends issues were not adequately raised with specificity in the motion for a new trial.	Not preserved; affirmed without addressing those issues on the merits.
Release of victim's medical records	Middleton was entitled to discovery of medical records.	Records were privileged/confidential and not subject to disclosure.	Not reviewed on the merits; preservation failure precludes appellate consideration.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (photos shown)	Photographs of the victim were improper and prejudicial.	Not properly preserved for appeal; trial record insufficient for reversal.	Not reviewed on the merits due to preservation rules.
Obvious error review under Rule 52(b)	Rule 52(b) could permit review for obvious error.	Obvious error review is limited and not warranted here.	Court declines obvious error review; would only apply in exceptional injustice.

State v. Jordheim, 508 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1993) (requires specificity in Rule 33 grounds; limits appellate review to stated issues)
State v. Zajac, 2009 ND 119 (N.D. 2009) (motion for new trial; appellate scope limited to grounds raised below)
State v. Hernandez, 2005 ND 214 (N.D. 2005) (preservation and review standards for new-trial motions)
State v. Syring, 524 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1994) (procedural limits on appeal from a new-trial motion)
City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1994) (obvious-error concept limited to preventing unjust convictions)
State v. Kopp, 419 N.W.2d 169 (N.D. 1988) (application of preservation and review standards)
State v. Glass, 29 N.D. 620, 151 N.W. 229 (N.D. 1915) (exceptional situation for applying obvious-error review)
State v. Kraft, 413 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1987) (interests of justice standard for new trial)