[¶ 1] Fritz Oрp appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges, the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of refusing to submit to chemical testing and the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. Opp argues his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated and the district court еrred in consolidating his two charges into one trial.- We affirm.
I
[¶ 2] Opp was stopped for speeding by a Grand Forks police officer in the early morning hours of October 30, 2015. The officer testified he observed Opp’s eyes were red, watery and bloodshot, Opp had a delayed reaction during quеstioning and admitted to drinking that night. The officer asked Opp to step out of his vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. Opp responded that he would do what was required by law. The officer proceeded with field sobriety testing. The officer administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, observing six out of six cluеs. The officer then administered the partial alphabet test, the full alphabet test and asked Opp to perform a backwards number count. Opp took an onsite screening test. Because the testifying officer was not certified to administer the onsite screening test an assisting officer аrrived and administered the test. Following the tests Opp was arrested for driving under the influence.
[¶ 3] The officer testified he read Opp the implied consеnt advisory and requested Opp submit to an intoxilyzer chemical breath test. According to the officer Opp’s response was “no.” The officer rеnewed his request after Opp questioned him about the breath test. The officer testified he asked Opp multiple times to take the in-toxilyzer test and Oрp never agreed to take it. The officer charged Opp with refusing to submit to chemical testing.
[¶4] Opp filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. The district court entered an order denying Opp’s motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. One-jury trial was held on both сharges. The jury found Opp guilty of refusing to submit to a chemical test, and hot guilty of driving under the influence. Opp filed a motion for a new trial, arguing he was entitled tо separate trials for each of the-charges. The district court entered an order denying Opp’s motion for a new trial. Opp appeals.
II
[¶5] Opp argues his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the officer had him perform field sobriety tests after telling the officer he would only do what was required by the law. The City of Grand Forks contends Opp is barred from raising these issues on appeal because. they were not properly preserved in his motion for a new trial.
[¶ 6] Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33(a), a defendant moving for a new trial “must specify the alleged defects and errors with particularity.” “A defendant is rеquired to assert ajl alleged errors in a motion for new trial.” State v. Middleton,
[¶ 8] Opp has not requested this Court review the issues he raised on appеal for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). This Court does not automatically apply obvious error analysis to issues raised on appeal that were not raised in a motion for a new trial. State v. Ratliff,
Ill
[¶ 9] Opp argues he was entitlеd to separate trials on his driving under the influence and criminal refusal charges. Opp raised this argument in his motion for a new trial. The district court denied Opp’s motion for a new trial, finding he failed to establish substantial prejudice from a consolidated trial. “A district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard.” City of Jamestown v. Hanson,
“Under Rule 14, an aggrieved defendant may seek relief from prejudicial joinder, but has the burden of demonstrating substantial prejudice from a consolidated trial. [T]he defendant’s burden is arduous. A mere showing that a separate trial would have provided a better chance of an acquittal will not suffice.”
Id. (quoting State v. Freed,
[¶ 10] Opp argues he suffered prejudice by the consolidation of the charges because he was forced to forgo a defense to the refusal charge. Specifically, Opp argues he was not allowed to present evidenсe that he had taken the preliminary breath test to defend the refusal charge. Opp argues presenting the breath test evidence, reflecting a reading over the legal limit, would be prejudicial to his driving under the influence charge.
[¶ 11] Opp contends he properly preserved the cоnsolidation of charges issue for review by objecting to the consolidation of the trial at the motion to suppress hearing and bringing the issue to the district court’s attention at the end of the trial. This Court has held “a motion for severance must be renewed at the close of evidence in order for the objection to joinder to survive.” State v. Bingaman,
[¶ 12] Opp has not requested this Court review this issue for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). This Court exercises its power to notice obvious error only “in exceptional circumstances where the accused has suffered serious injustice.” Jennewein,
[¶ 13] Opp argues he suffered prejudice because he wished to present evidence to defend the refusal charge, but could not because it would be harmful to the driving under the influence charge. Upon review of the record, Opp has not established obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). See Jennewein,
IV
[¶ 14] We affirm the district court’s order denying Opp’s motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges, the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of refusing to submit to chemical testing and the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial.