State v. Roe
2014 ND 104
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Roe was convicted by a jury of two counts of gross sexual imposition involving two girls under age 12, K.V. and N.V.
- Three out-of-court forensic interviews (DVDs) of the victims were discussed; two were admitted, and a third involving C.V. was at issue for potential exculpatory content.
- The parties stipulated to the admissibility of all three interviews under Rule 803(24) after a pretrial hearing, but the court had not yet made explicit reliability findings.
- KV and NV testified at trial; KV acknowledged no sexual contact in direct testimony, while NV testified to touching by Roe.
- The State played the three DVDs at trial; Roe challenged the admissibility, and the trial court denied a Rule 29 acquittal motion for KV’s charge.
- During closing, the prosecutor highlighted inconsistencies between trial testimony and the forensic interviews, and Roe was ultimately convicted on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child hearsay under 803(24) with a stipulated admission | State supported admissibility under 803(24) after hearing; stipulation allowed use | Roe argued required explicit reliability findings; objection to hearsay | No obvious error; stipulation allowed without explicit findings yet not reversible |
| Need for explicit reliability findings despite stipulation | Stipulation sufficed; reliability findings not required | Procedural safeguards should be explicit regardless of stipulation | District court did not err given stipulation and trial context |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for counts I and II | Forensic interviews showed sexual contact by Roe; corroborative testimony | Conflicting or limited direct evidence; defense contested credibility | Sufficient evidence to sustain both convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutor's closing argument and potential misconduct | Closing properly drew inferences from evidence and witnesses | Statements reflecting personal belief improperly bolstered witnesses | Not prosecutorial misconduct; no plain error affecting substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, 722 N.W.2d 515 (2006 ND) (evidentiary standard for child hearsay; factors for reliability)
- State v. Krull, 2005 ND 63, 693 N.W.2d 631 (2005 ND) (plain error for child hearsay admission without explicit reliability findings; distinction with stipulation)
- State v. Wegley, 2008 ND 4, 744 N.W.2d 284 (2008 ND) (requirements to show obvious error in hearsay rulings; substantial rights test)
- State v. Paul, 2009 ND 120, 769 N.W.2d 416 (2009 ND) (limits on when to correct obvious error in trial)