State v. Reddig, 876 N.W.2d 34

In Jan. 2014 police executed a search warrant at a Bismarck residence where Bauer, Walleen, and Burkhart were present; they testified Bryan Reddig had sold them nearly two pounds of marijuana and left 30–45 minutes before the search.
Detective Stein observed a dark-colored SUV leave the residence about 30 minutes before the warrant was executed; Bauer testified Reddig usually drove a maroon SUV.
Cell-phone text messages recovered from the occupants referenced a source called “Brian” or “B Dog,” which matched how Bauer stored Reddig in his phone.
Lab analyst Radulovich produced an analytical report confirming the seized substance exceeded 500 grams of marijuana; an unsigned/signed copy was provided to defense ~4 months before trial, and a certified copy was served 57 days before trial.
Reddig moved for judgment of acquittal at close of the State’s case and again at the end of trial; the district court denied both motions. The jury convicted Reddig of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and he received a 15-year sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Reddig's Argument	Held
Whether accomplice testimony required corroboration and whether omission of a corroboration instruction was reversible	There was independent corroboration (meeting arranged, surveillance of SUV, cell‑phone texts linking “B Dog”/Brian to transaction); any failure to instruct was harmless	Accomplices’ testimony was uncorroborated and unreliable; court should have instructed jury that accomplice testimony requires corroboration	Court held cumulative evidence (meeting, surveillance, texts, timing) sufficiently tended to connect Reddig to the crime; any failure to give instruction was non‑constitutional error and harmless
Whether admission of certified lab analytical report violated Rule 707 timing and required live testimony	State served a signed copy of the report months before trial (putting defense on notice); certified copy need not be served 60 days in certified form; defense made no timely written objection so confrontation waived	Certified copy was not served 60 days before trial as Rule 707 requires; therefore analyst should have testified	Court held Rule 707’s 60‑day service requirement was met by the signed report served ~4 months before trial; no written objection was filed within Rule 707 deadlines, so admission of the report was proper and error (if any) waived

State v. Gaede, 736 N.W.2d 418 (N.D. 2007) (purpose of corroboration is to show accomplice is a reliable witness)
State v. Zimmerman, 524 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1994) (discussing corroboration principles for accomplice testimony)
State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1989) (corroboration need not establish every fact; cumulative evidence may satisfy statute)
State v. Kelley, 450 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1990) (failure to give accomplice corroboration instruction may be harmless when corroboration is sufficient)
Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (analytical reports are testimonial statements implicating Confrontation Clause considerations)
State v. Hogie, 454 N.W.2d 501 (N.D. 1990) (existence of corroborating evidence is a question of law; sufficiency is for the jury)
State v. Falconer, 732 N.W.2d 703 (N.D. 2007) (independent evidence tending to connect defendant permits jury to weigh accomplice testimony)
State v. Smuda, 419 N.W.2d 166 (N.D. 1988) (harmless‑error analysis for constitutional trial errors)
State v. Thiel, 411 N.W.2d 66 (N.D. 1987) (standard for nonconstitutional trial errors’ effect on verdict)
Brunette v. State, 150 N.W. 271 (N.D. 1914) (common‑law rule on accomplice testimony before statutory change)