Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2011 ND 180

Nadeau v. State

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 2011

North Dakota Supreme Court · decided 2011-09-15

Decided 2011-09-15

¶1Filed 9/15/11 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72011 ND 175

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Spencer Curtiss, Defendant and Appellant

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20110062

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam.

¶28

¶29Pamela A. Nesvig (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, and Katherine M. Naumann (on brief), third-year law student, appearing under the Rule on the Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Courthouse, P.O. Box 5518, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5518, for plaintiff and appellee.

¶30

¶31Kent M. Morrow (on brief), 411 North 4th Street, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for defendant and appellant.

¶32State v. Curtiss

¶33No. 20110062

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36[¶1] Spencer Curtiss appeals the district court’s criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition.  Curtiss argues the district court erred by admitting a video of Curtiss smoking marijuana, admitting testimony about Curtiss channeling a younger personality while he engaged in sexual acts with the victim and excluding evidence of the victim’s sexual history.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by making the evidentiary rulings.

¶37[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶38Daniel J. Crothers

¶39Mary Muehlen Maring

¶40Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶41Dale V. Sandstrom

¶42

/2011/nd/180 · .json · Public domain