State v. Samaniego, 970 N.W.2d 222

Daniel Samaniego was charged with gross sexual imposition (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(1)(a)) alleging he compelled the victim to submit by force in Cass County.
At trial (May 2021) the victim testified Samaniego grabbed her wrist, pulled her into a living room, pulled down his pants, grabbed her head, and forced her to perform oral sex.
Three Fargo police officers testified about the investigation; Snapchat geolocation data placed the parties in Cass County the relevant evening.
The State asked a detective whether he had interviewed Samaniego; the question was objected to as beyond redirect and the objection was sustained (no further testimony about an interview was elicited).
Samaniego moved for judgment of acquittal arguing lack of credibility, insufficient force, and no evidence the crime occurred in Cass County; the court denied the motion. The jury was instructed that location must be found and that the defendant’s silence could not be considered. The jury convicted.

Issue	State's Argument	Samaniego's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence — force element	Victim’s testimony of being grabbed, pulled, and forced showed force compelling submission	Insufficient force shown; reliance on precedent requiring victim resistance	Evidence sufficient; force may be shown by prior acts; Mohammed controls—no requirement of resistance; jury could infer compulsion
Venue — whether offense occurred in Cass County	Venue established by investigative testimony and Snapchat geolocation; acts in furtherance in county suffice	No direct evidence the sexual act occurred in Cass County	Location is not an element of the offense; venue may be shown by acts in furtherance and geolocation evidence; Samaniego failed to timely object to venue defect
Prosecutorial misconduct — asking if defendant was interviewed	Question was permissible inquiry of investigation	Question implicated defendant’s right to remain silent / was improper	Objection preserved only as scope-of-redirect; did not preserve a right-to-silence claim; issue not properly preserved or argued as obvious error, so not reached on appeal

State v. Mohammed, 939 N.W.2d 498 (N.D. 2020) (no requirement that a victim resist; force sufficient to compel is the relevant inquiry)
State v. Truelove, 904 N.W.2d 342 (N.D. 2017) (acts prior to the sexual act may be considered when determining force)
State v. Martinsons, 462 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1990) (acts in furtherance occurring in a county confer venue for trial)
State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1984) (venue principles related to where acts in furtherance occur)
State v. Jacobson, 419 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1988) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Matuska, 379 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1985) (jury may draw reasonable inferences from competent evidence)
May v. Sprynczynatyk, 695 N.W.2d 196 (N.D. 2005) (specific objection required to preserve evidence rulings)
State v. Vondal, 803 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2011) (appellate review for prosecutorial misconduct raised for first time is for obvious error)
Interest of Buller, 952 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 2020) (appellate court will not conduct an unprompted search for obvious error)