¶1Filed 12/20/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court
¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT
¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
¶11State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
¶13v.
¶15Brian Shermer, Defendant and Appellant
¶19No. 20050066
¶23Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.
¶25AFFIRMED.
¶27Per Curiam.
¶29Ladd R. Erickson, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 1108, Washburn, ND 58577-
¶301108, for plaintiff and appellee.
¶32Todd A. Schwarz, Parkade Bldg., 2nd Fl., 515-1/2 E. Broadway, Ste. 103, Bismarck, ND 58501, for defendant and appellant.
¶33State v. Shermer
¶34No. 20050066
¶36Per Curiam.
¶37[¶1] Brian Shermer appeals from a criminal judgment and an order denying his motion to suppress evidence following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. He argues the chain of custody was not properly established when seventeen pounds of marijuana was found in the trunk of his car.
¶38[¶2] Shermer did not challenge the legality of the vehicle search. See N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3). He indicates: “The whole issue presented to this court is a case of first impression dealing with chain of custody and whether that evidence should be admissible.” Several North Dakota cases have previously discussed the admissibility of evidence following an alleged chain of custody violation. See, e.g. , State v. Huffman , 542 N.W.2d 718, 721 (N.D. 1996); State v. Haugen , 448 N.W.2d 191, 196 (N.D. 1989); State v. Bohe , 447 N.W.2d 277, 279 (N.D. 1989); State v. Hartsoch , 329 N.W.2d 367, 370 (N.D. 1983); State v. Skjonsby , 319 N.W.2d 764, 789 (N.D. 1982). These cases have held: “Any defect in the chain of custody goes to the weight of the evidence rather than the admissibility of the evidence.” Haugen , 448 N.W.2d at 196.
¶39[¶3] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
¶40[¶4] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
¶41Carol Ronning Kapsner
¶42Dale V. Sandstrom
¶43Daniel J. Crothers
¶44Mary Muehlen Maring