State v. Rourke
2017 ND 102
| N.D. | 2017Background
- Defendant J. Erin Rourke was charged with gross sexual imposition and corruption of a minor based on allegations by A.K.B. of sexual contact beginning before age 15 and a sexual act at age 15.
- A.K.B. testified Rourke touched her vagina under her underwear while she slept and later licked her vagina; she reported the abuse to friends, a parent, and a school counselor.
- Rourke acknowledged providing a room and a signed "contract" requiring A.K.B. to stay at his house certain nights, but denied any sexual contact.
- A jury convicted Rourke of gross sexual imposition and acquitted him of corruption of a minor.
- On appeal Rourke argued the evidence was insufficient because the timeline was inconclusive and the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence.
- The State and the court focused on whether Rourke preserved a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge by moving for judgment of acquittal at trial under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 or, alternatively, demonstrated an obvious error warranting review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of sufficiency challenge | State: defendant failed to preserve issue by not moving for acquittal | Rourke: evidence was insufficient to support conviction | Court: Rourke failed to move under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, so issue is not preserved; affirmed |
| Obvious-error exception to preservation | State: no obvious error to excuse failure to move | Rourke: implied that trial errors or weak timeline justify review | Court: defendant did not argue obvious error on appeal; court will not raise or search for such an argument sua sponte; did not apply obvious-error exception |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knowels, 671 N.W.2d 816 (N.D. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Noorlun, 705 N.W.2d 819 (N.D. 2005) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- State v. Yineman, 651 N.W.2d 648 (N.D. 2002) (motion for judgment of acquittal required to preserve sufficiency claim)
- City of Fargo v. Lunday, 760 N.W.2d 136 (N.D. 2009) (obvious-error exception and N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) standards)