State v. Wiese, 4 N.W.3d 242

Patrick Wiese was charged and convicted by jury of one count of promoting a sexual performance by a minor, one count of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity, and twelve counts of possession of prohibited materials.
The allegations were that Wiese communicated with a minor via online messaging, soliciting and receiving explicit material in exchange for cash or vape products.
Prior to trial, Wiese submitted proposed jury instructions, including the term "willfully" as an element for the patronizing charge, and did not object to these instructions at trial.
At trial, digital evidence and Wiese’s own admissions corroborated that he requested, received, and paid for explicit content from the minor.
The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts, and Wiese appealed, focusing on the jury instruction and sufficiency of evidence for possession charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction: Inclusion of "willfully"	Wiese proposed and did not object to the instruction; error was invited.	Inclusion was erroneous and prejudicial.	Invited error applies; issue is waived and not reviewable.
Sufficiency of evidence – promotion & possession	Evidence linked Wiese to account and explicit materials; constructive possession proven.	Materials were not on Wiese's phone; no evidence of possession.	Sufficient evidence; jury’s conclusion affirmed.
Applicability of obvious error review	Should not apply due to invited error doctrine.	Obvious error should be considered.	Doctrine bars review due to Wiese’s invited error.
Other arguments	Any additional points by defendant.	Raised but not specified as key for decision.	Not necessary/meritorious; decision not based on these.

State v. Yoney, 943 N.W.2d 791 (N.D. 2020) (obvious error review does not apply to invited errors)
State v. Smith, 984 N.W.2d 367 (N.D. 2023) (obvious error review not applicable to waived or invited errors)
State v. Haney, 998 N.W.2d 817 (N.D. 2023) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Christian, 795 N.W.2d 702 (N.D. 2011) (constructive possession can be proven by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Demarais, 770 N.W.2d 246 (N.D. 2009) (definition and proof of constructive possession)
State v. Rende, 907 N.W.2d 361 (N.D. 2018) (invited error doctrine bars appellate review of errors invited by defendant)