931 N.W.2d 181
N.D.2019Background
- On Oct. 7–8, 2017 A.I. passed out after drinking; she later awoke to sexual intercourse with Karim Muhammad. He was charged with gross sexual imposition—victim unaware.
- Police conducted lengthy interrogations of Muhammad; two recordings (totaling ~six hours) were admitted into evidence but not played in full to the jury during trial.
- The State played portions and law enforcement testified about the recordings; the jury was allowed access to the recordings during deliberations.
- Muhammad moved in limine to admit evidence of prior sexual contact with the victim to show his state of mind; the district court excluded that evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 412 and the State’s motion to preclude consent as a defense was granted.
- Muhammad was convicted after a three-day trial and appealed, arguing (1) error in admitting recordings without requiring they be played for the jury, (2) denial of the right to a public trial because recordings were not played in open court, and (3) erroneous exclusion of prior sexual-contact evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting interrogation recordings without requiring the State to play them in full for the jury violated Rule 106 or was an abuse of discretion | Recordings were properly admitted; Rule 106 concerns order of proof and the recordings were made available to the jury | Rule 106 requires publication of the entire recording to the jury when completeness is demanded | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; Rule 106 is not a rule of admissibility tied to compulsory public playback; defendant could play portions and did so |
| Whether admitting recordings without playing them in open court violated the defendant’s public-trial right | Proceedings admitting the exhibits occurred in open court; witnesses testified about content and defendant cross-examined them; jury had access in deliberations | Not playing the exhibits in open court closed the courtroom and denied the public-trial right; forcing defendant to play exhibits shifted burden | Affirmed: no public-trial violation where admission occurred in open court, contents were known through discovery and testimony, and defendant had opportunity to cross-examine (following related authority) |
| Whether exclusion of evidence of prior sexual contact with the victim was erroneous under N.D.R.Ev. 412 or as probative of defendant’s state of mind | The 412 exceptions do not permit prior sexual-contact evidence here because consent is not a defense; other 412 exceptions inapplicable | Prior sexual contact is relevant to defendant’s knowledge or reasonable belief and should be admissible to show state of mind | Affirmed: exclusion proper under Rule 412—exceptions do not apply (consent exception limited to consent issues; other exceptions inapplicable); no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wangstad, 917 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2018) (trial court has broad discretion on admission/exclusion of evidence)
- State v. Sevigny, 722 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mode and order of presenting evidence)
- State v. Peltier, 878 N.W.2d 68 (N.D. 2016) (application of Rule 412 and evidentiary exceptions)
- State v. Pittenger, 921 N.W.2d 439 (N.D. 2019) (structural error analysis for denial of public-trial right)
- State v. Sullivan, 414 P.3d 737 (Kan. 2018) (admitting lengthy interrogation recordings without playing them at trial did not violate public-trial right when admission occurred in open court and witnesses testified to content)