State v. Thompson

¶1Filed 1/12/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72011 ND 4

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11Casey O. Berg, Plaintiff and Appellant

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Toni N. Wysocki n/k/a

¶16Toni N. Bosma, Defendant and Appellee

¶17

¶18

¶19

¶20No. 20100179

¶21

¶22

¶23

¶24Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Debbie Gordon Kleven, Judge.

¶25

¶26AFFIRMED.

¶27

¶28Per Curiam.

¶29

¶30Patti J. Jensen (argued), 1312 Central Avenue North East, P.O. Box 386, East Grand Forks, MN 56721-0386, for plaintiff and appellant.

¶31

¶32Leslie Johnson Aldrich (argued), 1018 1st Avenue North, Fargo, ND 58102-

¶334602, for defendant and appellee.

¶34Berg v. Wysocki

¶35No. 20100179

¶36

¶37Per Curiam.

¶38[¶1] Casey O. Berg appealed from a district court judgment awarding Toni N. Bosma (formerly known as Toni N. Wysocki) primary residential responsibility of their child.  Berg was awarded parenting time.  Berg argues the district court erred by using independent investigation to question a witness during trial, the court erred by refusing to allow evidence on handguns in Bosma’s home, and the court “abused its discretion” in awarding primary residential responsibility to Bosma.  We summarily affirm the judgment.

¶39[¶2] The judge’s investigation was done in the parties’ and their counsels’ presence without objection.  “A party must object when the alleged error occurs so the trial court may take appropriate action, if possible, to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted.”  Frueh v. Frueh, 2009 ND 155, ¶ 19, 771 N.W.2d 593 (quoting Khokha v. Shahin, 2009 ND 110, ¶ 16, 767 N.W.2d 159).  Failure to object to a perceived error at trial may operate as a waiver of that objection.  Id.  Berg waived his objection to the judge’s investigation.  N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

¶40[¶3] Under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), the district court did not clearly err in awarding Bosma primary residential responsibility, and under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), the district court did not abuse its discretion on the admission of evidence on handguns.

¶41[¶4] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶42Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶43Mary Muehlen Maring

¶44Daniel J. Crothers

¶45Dale V. Sandstrom