State v. Peters, 981 N.W.2d 874

Background:

Dec. 27–28, 2019: Peters allegedly physically and sexually assaulted victim B.C.; Peters arrested Dec. 28, 2019.
Multiple continuances followed: initial trial set May 4, 2020, then repeatedly continued due to this Court’s COVID Administrative Order 25, unavailable expert witnesses (travel restrictions, maternity leave), defense requests, and parties’ stipulations.
First trial Aug. 23, 2021, ended in a mistrial; Peters first moved to dismiss for speedy-trial violations on Sept. 3, 2021. Second trial began Sept. 20, 2021, paused for a juror COVID-19 exposure, resumed Oct. 13, 2021.
Trial evidence included photographs of B.C.’s injuries taken on the night of the incident and days later; the district court admitted multiple photos over Peters’ objection that they were cumulative.
Jury convicted Peters of terrorizing, two counts of gross sexual imposition, attempted murder, and felonious restraint; Peters appealed claiming speedy-trial violation, Rule 403 cumulative-photograph error, and error in not giving a curative/limiting instruction.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Peters)	Held
Whether Peters’ Sixth Amendment/N.D. Const. speedy-trial right was violated by ~21 months between arrest and trial	Delays were due to COVID-related suspension of jury trials, unavailable State experts, defendant motions/stipulations, and COVID precautions; State acted promptly when able	21-month delay was presumptively prejudicial; incarceration and anxiety; movant sought dismissal	No violation. Delay was presumptively prejudicial but justified by legitimate reasons; Peters waited to assert right and showed no actual prejudice.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting multiple photographs as needlessly cumulative under N.D.R.Ev. 403	Photos were individually probative (different angles, stages of healing, scale) and assisted jury understanding	Multiple similar photos were cumulative and unfairly prejudicial	No abuse of discretion. Court reasonably found each photo added unique probative value and danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh probative value.
Whether the court erred in failing to give a limiting/curative jury instruction about the duplicate photos	No limiting instruction was necessary; defendant did not request one; no abuse of discretion in admitting photos	Court should have given a limiting instruction to mitigate prejudice from duplicate photos	No plain error. Defendant did not request instruction; because admission was proper there is no obvious error affecting substantial rights.

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
State v. Borland, 956 N.W.2d 412 (N.D. 2021) (applies speedy-trial factor analysis in ND and weighs defendant continuances/assertion timing)
State v. Hamre, 924 N.W.2d 776 (N.D. 2019) (discusses relationship of speedy-trial factors)
United States v. Sims, 847 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2017) (speedy-trial factor application and deference to findings)
State v. Ohnstad, 359 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 1984) (courts afford broad discretion admitting multiple photographs when they aid jury understanding)
State v. Klein, 593 N.W.2d 325 (N.D. 1999) (photos admissibility and Rule 403 discretion)
State v. Leavitt, 864 N.W.2d 472 (N.D. 2015) (standard for abuse of discretion review on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Wallitsch, 937 N.W.2d 529 (N.D. 2020) (plain-error review for failure to request jury instructions)