State v. JustState v. Just
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Kapsner
[¶ 1] Shane Just appeals from an order denying his motion to arrest judgment under
I
[¶ 2] Shane Just was tried and convicted by a jury of twelve counts of surreptitious intrusion. The complaint alleged Just had hidden a video camera in the bathroom/laundry room of his home and had secretly recorded several females changing their clothes. The charging language mirrored most of the statutory language for surreptitious intrusion. However, it failed to allege the recording device was used “through the window or other *543 aperture of ... [a] place where a reasonable individual would have an expectation of privacy....” Instead, the complaint omitted the “window or other aperture” phrase, alleging Just had surreptitiously installed the device “in a place where a reasonable individual would have an expectation of privacy....”
[¶ 3] Before trial, Just submitted his requested jury instructions to the district court, which provided a more exacting definition of surreptitious intrusion. Just argued that the “window or other aperture” phrase was an essential element of the offense and requested the jury instructions include the omitted phrase. The court agreed and instructed the jury as Just requested. The State did not amend the complaint to include the “window or other aperture” phrase after the court ruled on Just’s objection to the proposed jury instructions. Just was tried to a jury, where he argued the State had failed to prove the conduct occurred through a “window or other aperture.” The jury returned a guilty verdict on all twelve counts.
[¶ 4] After the verdict, Just filed a motion to arrest judgment under
II
[¶ 5] Just was convicted of twelve counts of surreptitious intrusion under
1. An individual, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that individual’s lust, passions, or sexual desires, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if that individual does any of the following:
d. With intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant, surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a tanning booth, a sleeping room in a hotel, or other place where a reasonable individual would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose that individual’s intimate parts or has removed the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts.
On appeal, Just argues the “through the window or other aperture” phrase constitutes an essential element of surreptitious intrusion. He argues the court erred when it refused to arrest judgment under
Ill
[¶ 6] The dispositive issue in this case is whether, even if the court erred in holding the “window or other aperture” phrase was not an essential element necessary for the validity of the complaint, the error was harmless under
[¶7]
... and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.” State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 31, 708 N.W.2d 913 (internal quotations omitted). It also prevents “setting aside convictions for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” Id. (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). Even constitutional errors do not automatically require reversal if it is shown they were harmless. Bertram,, at ¶ 31; City of Bismarck v. Judkins, 2005 ND 143, ¶7, 701 N.W.2d 911.
[¶ 8] The purpose of a complaint or information is to inform the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare for trial.
City of West Fargo v. Hawkins,
2000 ND 168, ¶ 8, 616 N.W.2d 856. On this record, there is nothing to suggest Just was not informed of the crime charged or that he was unprepared for trial. To the contrary, Just’s trial conduct shows he was fully aware of the “window or other aperture” phrase. At the specific request of Just, the jury instructions included the “window or other aperture” phrase and Just was allowed to argue the State failed to prove the conduct occurred through a window or aperture. Still, the jury returned guilty verdicts on twelve counts of surreptitious intrusion. The effect of arresting judgment under
[¶ 9] The instant case is similar to the facts presented in Bertram. There, the defendant appealed a district court judgment entered upon jury verdicts finding him guilty of violating a disorderly conduct restraining order, criminal trespass, and contact by bodily fluids. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶1, 708 N.W.2d 913. Bertram argued the information was insufficient with respect to the bodily fluids charge at the trial court because the information failed to allege every essential element of the offense. Id. at ¶ 21. He claimed, “the information was facially deficient and his conviction must be reversed.” Id. The State had failed to include a statutorily defined exception to the statute prohibiting *545 contact with bodily fluids. Id. In analyzing Bertram’s claim, we applied a harmless error analysis. Id. at ¶¶ 29-32. We stated “[i]n the absence of any evidence that [Bertram] relied on the information to his detriment or was otherwise prejudiced, we conclude the error ..., the drafting of an insufficient charging document, is subject to a harmless error analysis.” Id. at ¶ 32.
[¶ 10] In this case, as in
Bertram,:,
Just raised the issue of an insufficient charging document with the district court. Just objected to the jury instructions, claiming the “window or other aperture” phrase was an essential element of the offense. After discussing it with counsel, the court agreed the phrase was an essential element and instructed the jury accordingly. In closing arguments, Just’s counsel argued the State failed to prove that the conduct occurred through a window or aperture. Despite Just’s arguments and the jury instructions, the jury convicted Just on twelve counts of surreptitious intrusion under
[¶ 11] Just was aware of the statutory elements, he was afforded an adequate opportunity to prepare for trial, the court properly instructed the jury on the law, and Just was allowed to argue the State failed to prove the “window or other aperture” element in his closing arguments. Therefore, even if the phrase is an essential element, a decision we need not make, the failure to allege it in the charging document was harmless under
IV
[¶ 12] The district court’s order denying Just’s motion to arrest judgment under