State v. Roe, 846 N.W.2d 707

Barry Roe was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition involving two children, K.V. and N.V.; a third child, C.V., was investigated but not charged.
The State recorded forensic DVD interviews of K.V., N.V., and C.V.; pretrial a hearing under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24) was held and parties stipulated to admissibility of all three recorded interviews.
At trial K.V. (age 11) and N.V. (age 9) testified; their live testimony partially conflicted with their recorded interviews (K.V. mostly recanted at trial; the DVDs contained disclosures of sexual contact).
The jury viewed all three forensic-interview DVDs, including C.V.’s allegedly exculpatory interview, and convicted Roe on both counts.
Roe appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not making explicit trustworthiness findings under Rule 803(24), (2) insufficiency of the evidence, and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Roe)	Held
Admissibility of child hearsay when parties stipulate	Stipulation waived need for further 803(24) findings; DVDs admissible	District court erred by failing to make explicit trustworthiness findings required by 803(24)	Admissibility challenge fails: stipulation precluded reversal for obvious error; no plain error shown
Whether failure to make 803(24) findings is reversible	Court need not follow rigid procedures when parties stipulate evidence	Mandatory explicit findings were required despite stipulation	Court affirmed: parties can stipulate to admission and thereby waive procedural findings in this context
Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions	Forensic interviews and live testimony, viewed favorably to the State, support convictions	Testimony conflicted; defendant denied conduct	Sufficient evidence: a rational juror could convict beyond reasonable doubt
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument	Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from evidence (children’s behavior/forensic interviews)	Prosecutor vouched/improperly vouched for witnesses' truthfulness	No plain error: statements were fair inferences from evidence and not improper vouching

State v. Sevigny, 722 N.W.2d 515 (N.D. 2006) (factors and requirement for explicit 803(24) findings)
State v. Krull, 693 N.W.2d 631 (N.D. 2005) (failure to make 803(24) findings is plain error but not necessarily prejudicial)
State v. Wegley, 744 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 2008) (standard for obvious error review)
State v. Paul, 769 N.W.2d 416 (N.D. 2009) (discretionary correction of obvious error limited)
State v. Chacano, 826 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2013) (definition of obvious error and appellate restraint)
State v. Estrada, 830 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2013) (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Clark, 678 N.W.2d 765 (N.D. 2004) (limits on prosecutor argument and impermissible personal knowledge)
State v. Rivet, 752 N.W.2d 611 (N.D. 2008) (plain-error review for unobjected-to prosecutorial statements)
State v. Schimmel, 409 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1987) (prosecutorial vouching can undermine fair trial)