State v. Yarbro, 2014 ND 164

Yarbro was charged in Feb 2012 with continuous sexual abuse of a child for acts between Apr 2010 and Oct 2011.
Underwear from the complainant and the complainant’s mother’s underwear were tested; lab found no semen but could not exclude Yarbro as DNA source on two underwear pairs.
Yarbro moved to suppress the underwear and DNA results, arguing taint by secondary transfer and lack of relevance; the district court denied.
During trial, the state introduced a lab report and expert testimony that Yarbro could not be excluded as a DNA source; Yarbro did not object to admission at trial.
Yarbro was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child; he moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct, which the district court denied.
On appeal, Yarbro challenges the DNA admission, the denial of a new trial for juror misconduct, and the denial of a continuance to secure a juror’s testimony; the Court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
DNA evidence preservation and admission	Yarbro preserved the issue by suppression motion; the DNA evidence was relevant and not prejudicial.	DNA evidence should have been suppressed as irrelevant/tainted and prejudicial.	Issue waived; no appellate review on DNA due to failure to renew objection at trial and in motion for new trial.
Denial of new trial for juror misconduct	Juror S.G. provided extraneous information affecting deliberations; misconduct prejudiced verdict.	No misrepresentation during voir dire; statements were not improperly admitted; no prejudice.	District court did not abuse its discretion; no reasonable likelihood the verdict was affected.
Continuance to secure juror testimony	A continuance was necessary to secure a juror's testimony about deliberations.	Court properly denied continuance as untimely and lacking good cause, balancing victim's rights.	Court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance.

State v. Thompson, 2010 ND 10 (N.D. 2010) (preservation of evidentiary objections requires renewal at trial)
State v. Buchholz, 2004 ND 77 (N.D. 2004) (pretrial motions to exclude evidence and preservation for appellate review)
State v. Anderson, 2003 ND 30 (N.D. 2003) (requirement to preserve evidentiary issues for review)
Hidanovic, 2008 ND 66 (N.D. 2008) (juror affidavits; limits on testimony under 606(b) and standards for new trial)
Brooks, 520 N.W.2d 796 (N.D. 1994) (evaluation of juror misconduct and extraneous information under 606(b))