878 N.W.2d 68
N.D.2016Background
- Cameron Peltier was tried by jury and convicted of gross sexual imposition for alleged sexual contact with a minor under 15.
- Before trial, Peltier sought to admit evidence that the victim had allegedly been sexually abused by a cousin five years earlier.
- The victim reportedly told a forensic interviewer she had not been touched in a way that made her feel unsafe; the mother told law enforcement about the possible cousin incident.
- Peltier moved to admit the mother’s statements under N.D.R.Ev. 412(b)(1)(C) (constitutional-rights exception) and to use them as prior inconsistent statements under N.D.R.Ev. 613 for impeachment.
- The district court excluded the evidence, finding Peltier had not shown a prior inconsistent statement or a constitutional violation; Peltier appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of the victim’s alleged prior abuse by a cousin is admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 412(b)(1)(C) as necessary to prevent violation of defendant’s confrontation rights | State: exclusion proper; no constitutional violation shown | Peltier: exclusion prevents confrontation and violates Sixth Amendment | Court: exclusion did not violate confrontation rights; defendant had opportunity to cross-examine victim; exception not triggered |
| Whether mother’s statement to law enforcement qualifies as a prior inconsistent statement admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 613 | State: not inconsistent with victim’s forensic interview response | Peltier: mother’s statement contradicts victim’s prior denial and can be used to impeach | Court: defendant failed to establish an inconsistent statement; exclusion within court’s broad discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Killu, 710 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 2006) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings and reversal requires abuse of that discretion)
- State v. Kautzman, 738 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2007) (party raising constitutional challenge must adequately develop foundation; mere reference is insufficient)
- State v. Osier, 590 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1999) (same principle regarding adequacy of constitutional argument)