[¶ 1] Viсente Chacano appeals a district court criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Chacano argues both counts of gross sexual imposition should be dismissed. We affirm.
I
[¶ 2] On September 11, 2008, Chacano was charged with two counts of gross sеxual imposition for having sexual contact with a victim less than fifteen years old. On September 15, 2008, Chacano was charged with three additional сounts of gross sexual imposition for conduct involving the same victim. On September 24, 2008, the State moved to dismiss one count in the first complaint becаuse the same charge was included in the second complaint. The district court granted the motion. On October 2, 2008, the district court held a preliminаry hearing on the charges in both complaints. The district court found probable cause to bind over Chacano for trial, and the State filed an information for each case. On January 15, 2009, the Adams County State’s Attorney moved to dismiss all charges against Cha-cano. The motion included the writtеn statement: “To prevent a possible miscarriage of justice a further investigation is necessary.” Chacano did not object to the dismissal. Thе district court granted the motion and dismissed all charges without prejudice.
[¶ 3] On January 7, 2010, an assistant attorney general filed a complaint charging Chаcano with three counts of gross sexual imposition for conduct involving the same victim and the same time period as the 2008 charges. On April 5, 2010, the dis
II
[¶ 4] Chacano argues that under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a), the State was required to conduct further investigation before refiling the charges. Chacano аrgues that because the State recharged Chacano without further investigation, his conviction should be reversed and this case should be dismissed. The State responds that Chacano failed to preserve the issue for review because he did not object to the State’s motion to dismiss the 2008 charges. The State further responds no further investigation was required because the 2008 charges were dismissed without prejudice.
[¶ 5] Rule 48, N.D.R.Crim.P., was adapted from the federal rule, and we have relied on federal cases interpreting the rule for guidance. N.D.R.Crim.P. 48 Explanatory Note; State ex rel. Koppy v. Graff,
A
[¶ 6] We first address the State’s argument that Chacano failed to preserve his argument for appeal. “A touchstone for an effective appeal on any proper issue is that the matter was appropriately raised in the trial court, so the trial court could intelligently rule on it.” State v. Bell,
[¶ 7] When criminal charges are dismissed under Rule 48(a), a defendant arguing the government acted for an improper рurpose ordinarily must object both when the government files its motion to dismiss and when the charges are refiled. United States v. Reyes,
B
[¶ 9] We next сonsider whether N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a) required the State to conduct further investigation before refiling the charges against Chacano. For purposes of our decision, we accept Chaca-no’s premise that no further investigation was conducted. However, we note the State’s disagreеment with Chacano’s claim.
[¶ 10] The interpretation of a court rule or a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Ebertz,
[1Í11] Rule 48(a), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides:
“(a) By Prosecuting Attorney. The prosecuting attorney may not dismiss an indictment, information or complaint except on motion and with the court’s approval. A motion to dismiss must be supported by a written statement concisely stating the reasons for the motion. The statement must be filed with the clеrk and be open to public inspection. The prosecuting attorney may not dismiss a criminal case during trial without the defendant’s consent.”
The plain language of Rule 48(a) applies to the dismissal of a criminal charge and does not require the prosecuting attorney to take аny specific action before a charge dismissed without prejudice can be refiled. In this case, a state’s attorney determined he did nоt have sufficient evidence to proceed on the 2008 charges and moved to dismiss. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the 2008 charges withоut prejudice. A criminal charge dismissed without prejudice may be refiled within the applicable statutory period. State v. Jones,
Ill
[¶ 12] We affirm the district court’s criminal judgment.