State v. Harrison

¶1Filed 1/26/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

¶2IN THE SUPREME COURT

¶3STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

¶4

¶5

¶6

¶72017 ND 6

¶8

¶9

¶10

¶11State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

¶12

¶13v.

¶14

¶15Fabian Cabralas Harrison, Defendant and Appellant

¶16

¶17

¶18

¶19No. 20160195

¶20

¶21

¶22

¶23Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonna M. Anderson, Judge.

¶24

¶25AFFIRMED.

¶26

¶27Per Curiam

¶28

¶29Julie A. Lawyer, Burleigh County Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 E. Thayer Ave., Bismarck, ND 58501, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

¶30

¶31Kyle M. Melia, Bismarck-Mandan Public Defender Office, 410 E. Thayer Ave., Ste. 201, Bismarck, ND 58501, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

¶32State v. Harrison

¶33No. 20160195

¶34

¶35Per Curiam.

¶36[¶1] Fabian Harrison appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury convicted him of four counts of gross sexual imposition.  Harrison argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss based on the State’s discovery violation under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16.  Harrison also argues there is insufficient evidence to uphold the jury verdict.  We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a remedy for the State’s discovery violation under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), and there is sufficient evidence to uphold the guilty verdict.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), (4), and (7).   See State v. Addai , 2010 ND 29, ¶ 41, 778 N.W.2d 555 (the district court has discretion to apply one or more remedies for a discovery violation under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), including ordering further disclosure, granting a continuance, prohibiting evidentiary use of the non-disclosed material, relieving a party from making disclosure, or any other order that is just under the circumstances).

¶37[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

¶38Lisa Fair McEvers

¶39Daniel J. Crothers

¶40Jerod E. Tufte

¶41Carol Ronning Kapsner

¶42