State v. Russell, 886 N.W.2d 677

Background

Russell was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Corporal Travis Bateman; a red bag fell out when Russell exited and he put it back in the car.
After Bateman ran IDs, Russell was arrested on a preexisting failure-to-appear warrant; a used syringe was later found in Russell’s left breast pocket.
The red bag contained syringes, methamphetamine, a digital scale, and baggies; the car was messy with drug paraphernalia and items testing positive for methamphetamine residue.
Russell was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and possession with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school; the jury convicted him of possession of drug paraphernalia and acquitted on the intent-to-deliver charge.
Before trial the State moved in limine to bar cross-examination about a pending reckless endangerment charge against Bateman; the district court granted the motion, and Russell appealed the evidentiary ruling and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether precluding cross-examination of the arresting officer about a later-pending criminal charge violated Brady/Giglio	The State contends no Brady/Giglio violation because no material impeachment evidence was suppressed and defense knew of the charge before trial	Russell contends exclusion of evidence of Bateman’s pending charge denied him impeachment evidence and violated due process under Brady/Giglio	Court held no Brady/Giglio violation; defense knew of charge and exclusion was evidentiary, not suppression; no materiality shown
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion in limine	The State argued the pending charge was irrelevant, risked a sideshow, and was not a conviction admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 609	Russell argued the pending charge was admissible impeachment evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 608(b)	Court held the district court did not abuse discretion; the pending charge was irrelevant and not shown probative of truthfulness
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia	The State argued circumstantial evidence (syringe on Russell, red bag handled by him containing syringes and meth, vehicle containing scales/baggies and lab positives) supported constructive/joint possession	Russell argued multiple occupants, messy car, single officer witness to contact with bag, and lack of lab testing on syringe made evidence insufficient	Court held competent circumstantial evidence existed to permit reasonable inference of possession and affirmed conviction

Key Cases Cited

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (nondisclosure of evidence affecting witness credibility may require new trial if material)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and material impeachment evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (defines Brady materiality as a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the outcome)
State v. Thiel, 515 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1994) (Brady/Giglio analysis cited in North Dakota decisions)
State v. Kalmio, 846 N.W.2d 752 (N.D. 2014) (standard for reviewing district court evidentiary rulings)
State v. Chisholm, 818 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2012) (evidentiary discretion overview)
State v. Hoverson, 710 N.W.2d 890 (N.D. 2006) (Rule 608(b) impeachment by specific instances may be permitted on cross-examination)
State v. Demarais, 770 N.W.2d 246 (N.D. 2009) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48 (N.D. 1983) (possession can be actual or constructive and proven circumstantially)