State v. Polk, 950 N.W.2d 764

Polk and the victim had an intermittent romantic relationship for many years; an incident occurred at the victim’s home around July 13, 2019.
The victim testified Polk struck her head multiple times with his fist and later strangled her while she slept.
Two days later, officers conducting a welfare check observed bruising around the victim’s neck; an ambulance was called and Polk was arrested and charged with aggravated assault (domestic violence), terrorizing (domestic violence), and violating a no-contact order.
At trial the State presented the victim’s testimony, hospital photos showing neck bruising, and an emergency-room doctor who testified the injuries could be consistent with strangulation; Polk was convicted of aggravated assault and the no-contact order violation.
Polk sought to introduce testimony from three Fargo police officers about prior reports the victim made (to impeach her); the trial court excluded that testimony under the rules on impeachment and character evidence.
Polk moved for judgment of acquittal arguing insufficient evidence of "serious bodily injury"; the motion was denied and Polk appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant caused "serious bodily injury" for aggravated assault	Victim’s uncorroborated testimony, photos, and ER doctor testimony suffice to prove strangulation and serious bodily injury	Evidence did not establish the statutory definition of "serious bodily injury"; acquittal required	Affirmed: viewed favorably to verdict, victim’s testimony plus photos and medical testimony provided substantial evidence to sustain conviction
Exclusion of three officers’ testimony about victim’s prior reports (impeachment)	Exclusion proper under Rule 608(b); prior specific-instance allegations must be asked on cross-exam of the witness, not by extrinsic evidence	Excluding officers’ testimony prevented impeachment of victim’s credibility and was an abuse of discretion	Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion—Rule 608(b) bars extrinsic evidence of specific instances and limits inquiry to cross-examination of the witness

State v. Eggleston, 940 N.W.2d 645 (N.D. 2020) (standard for Rule 29 sufficiency review)
State v. Kringstad, 353 N.W.2d 302 (N.D. 1984) (uncorroborated testimony of a victim can be sufficient to establish offense elements)
United States v. L.B.G., 131 F.3d 1276 (8th Cir. 1997) (a single witness’s uncorroborated testimony may sustain a conviction)
United States v. Dodge, 538 F.2d 770 (8th Cir. 1976) (same principle regarding single-witness sufficiency)
State v. Doppler, 828 N.W.2d 502 (N.D. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Chisholm, 818 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2012) (district court’s discretion in admitting/excluding evidence and when that discretion is abused)