937 N.W.2d 529
N.D.2020Background:
- Defendant Jim Austin Wallitsch was charged with aggravated assault and tampering with physical evidence; convicted by a jury and appealed.
- During voir dire a potential juror (a Homeland Security agent) said, “I’m fairly certain I’ve arrested your client before.”
- The prospective juror was excused; the exchange was not discussed further and no curative instruction was given to the venire or jury.
- Wallitsch did not object at trial to the lack of a curative instruction; on appeal he argued the omission was obvious error requiring reversal.
- The district court entered an amended judgment; the North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed under the obvious-error standard and affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Wallitsch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by failing to give a curative instruction about a prospective juror's statement during voir dire and whether that omission constituted obvious error affecting substantial rights | No obvious error: even if the court erred, Wallitsch cannot show plain error that affected substantial rights or the fairness/integrity of proceedings | The juror's statement (that he had arrested Wallitsch) removed the presumption of innocence and prejudiced the jury; failure to instruct was obvious error requiring reversal | Court affirmed: assuming any error, it was not "obvious error" under N.D. law and did not rise to an exceptional situation warranting reversal; no sua sponte curative instruction required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lang, 865 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 2015) (declining to find obvious error where court did not give curative instruction for voir dire remark)
- State v. Patterson, 855 N.W.2d 113 (N.D. 2014) (obvious-error review requires clear deviation from applicable legal rule)
- State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (defining contours of obvious-error standard)
- State v. Roe, 846 N.W.2d 707 (N.D. 2014) (noting appellate discretion to correct obvious error only when fairness/integrity/public reputation are seriously affected)
- State v. Doll, 812 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 2012) (elements required to show obvious error)
