State v. Mitchell, 960 N.W.2d 788

Defendant Donald Mitchell was charged with gross sexual imposition for allegedly engaging in a sexual act with a victim under 15 (victim was 14 on Dec. 1, 2018).
At the preliminary hearing Officer Brian Williams was the only witness; he was not the investigating officer, had not viewed the video evidence, and had no prior contact with Mitchell.
Williams testified (as hearsay) that school personnel reported a video showed Mitchell engaging in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim and that the video had been obtained from the victim.
The district court dismissed the charge without prejudice, finding no probable cause because the officer lacked first‑hand knowledge and failed to make an "assertive ID."
The State appealed, arguing the hearsay testimony was sufficient for probable cause; the Supreme Court reviewed the probable‑cause determination de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether testimony by a non‑investigating officer who had not viewed the video (based on reports that a video showed intercourse) sufficed to establish probable cause at a preliminary hearing	State: testimony that a video showed intercourse and that the victim was 14 provided reasonable grounds to believe the offense occurred	Mitchell: testimony insufficient because officer lacked first‑hand knowledge and no assertive identification of defendant on the video	Reversed: hearsay at a preliminary hearing may support probable cause; officer's testimony about the video and victim's age was sufficient
Whether dismissal without prejudice is appealable by the State	State: an order dismissing without prejudice is appealable under controlling statute/case law	Mitchell: maintained dismissal was proper (implicitly opposing reversal)	Court held the State may appeal an adverse probable‑cause ruling; jurisdiction exists to hear the appeal

State v. Goldmann, 831 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2013) (appealability of dismissal and preliminary‑hearing standards)
State v. Gwyther, 589 N.W.2d 575 (N.D. 1999) (dismissing a complaint is equivalent to quashing an information for appealability)
State v. Blunt, 751 N.W.2d 692 (N.D. 2008) (preliminary hearing is a probable‑cause screening; hearsay admissible)
State v. Midell, 798 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 2011) (probable cause at preliminary hearing is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Walker v. Schneider, 477 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 1991) (State may appeal an adverse probable‑cause ruling or refile)
State v. Moe, 782 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 2010) (statutory definition of "sexual act" includes intercourse)