State v. Spillum, 954 N.W.2d 673

Law enforcement investigated Sean Spillum for uploading suspected child‑pornography to a cloud service; electronic devices were seized from his home.
Officers conducted three interviews; the third interview at the police department occurred the day after an arrest warrant for Spillum had been issued.
Officers did not disclose the warrant to Spillum, informed him at the start he was not under arrest, that he was free not to speak, and offered to help obtain counsel; Spillum declined counsel and answered questions.
At the end of the third interview officers told Spillum he could not leave and placed him under arrest; he was later charged with possession of certain materials prohibited.
Spillum moved to suppress statements from the third interview (claiming Miranda protections applied because a warrant existed) and, at trial, moved for judgment of acquittal on a different ground; the district court denied suppression and a jury convicted him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that offense occurred in Ward County	State: trial evidence and inferences supported conviction	Spillum: State failed to prove location (jurisdictional defect)	Not preserved on appeal — Rule 29 motion did not raise location; conviction affirmed
Admissibility of statements from third interview (Miranda/custody)	State: interview was noncustodial because Spillum was told he was not under arrest and was not restrained; he felt free to leave	Spillum: an arrest warrant existed before the interview, so questioning was custodial and Miranda warnings were required	Denial of suppression affirmed — Spillum was unaware of the warrant and a reasonable person in his position would have felt free to leave, so Miranda did not apply

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial‑interrogation warnings required before using statements)
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (use objective reasonable‑person free‑to‑leave test for custody)
State v. Huether, 790 N.W.2d 901 (N.D. 2010) (defines custodial interrogation under Miranda)
State v. Sabinash, 574 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 1998) (custody is a mixed question of fact and law; Miranda applicability reviewable)
State v. Kenny, 932 N.W.2d 516 (N.D. 2019) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Helm, 946 N.W.2d 503 (N.D. 2020) (Rule 29 motion specificity required to preserve sufficiency claims on appeal)
State v. Goebel, 725 N.W.2d 578 (N.D. 2007) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)