State v. Poulor, 932 N.W.2d 534

Background

On May 11, 2017, Kanakai Poulor was accused by an 8-year-old girl (family acquaintance) of repeatedly putting his hand between her legs inside her pants/underwear while visiting the family home. The child told her mother the same evening; police were notified and interviewed the child.
The child underwent a recorded forensic interview at the Red River Children’s Advocacy Center; the recording was played at trial and Detective Skalicky viewed it live but the forensic interviewer (Jill Perez) did not testify at trial.
Poulor was charged with one count of gross sexual imposition (N.D.C.C. § 12.1‑20‑03(2)(a)). At an August 2018 three-day jury trial the child, parents, police, a pediatric sexual-assault examiner, and Poulor (who testified) appeared; the jury convicted Poulor.
On appeal Poulor challenged (1) admission of the CAC videotaped forensic interview under the Confrontation Clause and N.D.R.Ev. 803(24), (2) the district court’s compliance with the Krull procedure for child‑hearsay findings, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding no Confrontation Clause violation, no abuse of discretion admitting the child’s video statement under Rule 803(24), and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Poulor)	Held
Confrontation Clause — admission of forensic interview video	Admission did not violate confrontation because the child testified at trial and was cross‑examined; no need to cross‑examine the interviewer	Admission violated Sixth Amendment because the recorded interview was testimonial and Perez (interviewer) was not cross‑examined	No violation: child testified and was cross‑examined; Poulor identified no testimonial statements by Perez requiring confrontation
Admissibility under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24) (child‑hearsay trustworthiness)	Video met trustworthiness factors (spontaneity, repetition, age‑appropriate terminology, lack of motive) and district court properly evaluated factors	District court abused discretion by admitting video without sufficient findings on trustworthiness and without testimony from the interviewer to assess terminology/consistency	No abuse of discretion: court relied on offer of proof, evaluated nonexclusive factors, allowed cross‑examination at trial; any lack of more detailed findings did not show prejudice
Krull procedural compliance / plain error	Court followed admissibility analysis sufficiently; any deficiency was harmless	Court failed to conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing and did not make specific findings per Krull; plain error requiring reversal	Even if Krull procedure not strictly followed, any error was not prejudicial—outcome would not have changed because the child testified and was cross‑examined
Sufficiency of evidence for gross sexual imposition	Testimony of the child and corroborating witnesses/evidence supported conviction	Inconsistencies in child’s account, lack of detail, and other family testimony undermine reliability—insufficient evidence	Evidence sufficient: viewing record in light most favorable to verdict, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
State v. Blue, 717 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 2006) (videotaped child interview can be testimonial; admission problematic if child does not testify)
State v. Sevigny, 722 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2006) (no confrontation violation where child testified and was cross‑examined despite prior out‑of‑court statement)
State v. Muhle, 737 N.W.2d 636 (N.D. 2007) (discusses child‑hearsay factors and confrontation analysis when child testifies)
State v. Krull, 693 N.W.2d 631 (N.D. 2005) (requires specific findings on time, content, circumstances supporting trustworthiness under child‑hearsay rule)
State v. Hirschkorn, 640 N.W.2d 439 (N.D. 2002) (discusses necessity of findings under child‑hearsay rule)
State v. Steen, 615 N.W.2d 555 (N.D. 2000) (standard for reversing convictions for insufficient evidence)