State v. Noble, 992 N.W.2d 518

Drew Adam Noble was charged with multiple crimes including four counts (12–15) of producing/promoting an obscene sexual performance by a minor (class A felonies) alleging the offenses occurred on or between June 2020 and January 2021.
After a four-day jury trial in August 2022, the district court denied Noble’s N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion and the jury convicted him on the charged counts.
At trial the victim testified the four videos at issue were created during a visit in August 2019, when she was about 17 going on 18.
The State elicited no evidence that the videos were produced between June 2020 and January 2021 or that Noble distributed/uploaded them during that period; the State later conceded the producing counts contained incorrect dates.
The North Dakota Supreme Court held there was insufficient evidence as to counts 12–15 because the jury was instructed and the information charged production during a period when the victim was not a minor; those convictions were reversed and vacated. Convictions on the remaining counts were affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Noble's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for counts 12–15 (producing/promoting an obscene sexual performance by a minor)	Trial evidence and jury verdict supported convictions (State initially argued sufficiency at trial; on appeal conceded an element was not proved)	Victim testified the videos were produced in Aug 2019 (when she was not a minor during the charged period); no evidence production occurred between June 2020–Jan 2021	Reversed and vacated counts 12–15 for insufficient evidence because production did not occur in the charged time frame when the performer was a minor
Whether an erroneous date in the charging instrument is fatal	Dates in an information are not reversible error unless the date is an essential element (State relied on general rule)	The charged dates were essential here because the statute requires the performer to have been a minor during the performance, and evidence showed production occurred outside those dates	The date was effectively essential to proving the element that the performer was a minor at the time of the performance; convictions on those counts could not stand

State v. Dahl, 982 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 2022) (standard for reviewing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges)
State v. Nakvinda, 807 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 2011) (jury may convict despite evidence that could support an acquittal; reviewing court does not reweigh evidence)
State v. Friesz, 898 N.W.2d 688 (N.D. 2017) (unchallenged jury instructions become the law of the case)
State v. Rogers, 730 N.W.2d 859 (N.D. 2007) (same principle regarding jury instructions)
City of W. Fargo v. Hawkins, 616 N.W.2d 856 (N.D. 2000) (a date in a complaint/information is not reversible error unless it is an essential element of the offense)