State v. Pederson, 6 N.W.3d 619

Jason (a.k.a. Katheryn) Pederson was convicted of terrorizing based on two emails sent to her former employer threatening to seize physical assets if not paid damages and suggesting the possibility of "unnecessary deaths."
The employer contacted law enforcement after receiving these emails, resulting in a trespass notice to Pederson via phone by Officer Anderson, which was recorded on his bodycam.
The bodycam recording of this conversation was not disclosed to Pederson, as it was filed under a civil trespass file and deleted after 180 days.
Pederson represented herself at trial, moved to compel discovery of the recording, and argued the State’s failure to disclose was a Brady violation.
The jury found Pederson guilty, and she appealed, arguing both a Brady violation and insufficient evidence to support her conviction.

Issue	Pederson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Brady violation for lost recording	Nondisclosure violated due process; recording should have been provided	Recording not relevant to terrorizing charge; loss not intentional	No Brady violation; Pederson did not show recording was favorable or exculpatory
Insufficient evidence to sustain conviction	Not enough evidence to convict	Pederson failed to preserve the issue (no motion for acquittal)	Issue not preserved, not reviewed on appeal

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
State v. Kolstad, 942 N.W.2d 865 (N.D. 2020) (recites elements of Brady violation)
State v. Schweitzer, 961 N.W.2d 310 (N.D. 2021) (lays out four-part Brady test)
State v. Horn, 857 N.W.2d 77 (N.D. 2014) (Brady does not apply to evidence merely possibly exculpatory)
State v. Rourke, 893 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 2017) (defendant must move for acquittal to preserve sufficiency challenge)