This Court will not consider an argument that is not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed. A party waives an error when the party is given the opportunity to address it and intentionally relinquishes the opportunity.
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Daedyn Ashton Lewellyn, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20240294
Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial
District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Julie A. Lawyer, State’s Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.
Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant.
State v. Lewellyn
No. 20240294
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Daedyn Ashton Lewellyn appeals from a criminal judgment finding him
guilty of two class C felonies, terrorizing and reckless endangerment, and having
committed a non-criminal offense for failing to inform the officer of a concealed
weapon. Lewellyn argues the admission of a redacted 911 call and the 911 caller’s
testimony unfairly prejudiced him and confused the jury by failing to specify any
time, location, or specific victim, and generalized the conduct and essential
elements that the State was required to prove in regard to the terrorizing and
reckless endangerment charges. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(4) and (7).
I
[¶2] We conclude Lewellyn has failed to identify any prejudice required under
Rule 403, N.D.R.Ev., to exclude the redacted 911 call and the 911 caller’s
testimony. See N.D.R.Ev. 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the
following: (a) unfair prejudice; (b) confusing the issues; (c) misleading the jury;
(d) undue delay; (e) wasting time; or (f) needlessly presenting cumulative
evidence.”). Lewellyn failed to provide any argument identifying the prejudice
which may have arisen from admission of the 911 call or related testimony. We
affirm pursuant to N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
II
[¶3] We further conclude Lewellyn waived his challenge to the jury
instructions. See State v. Gaddie,
(“Under
N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c), to preserve a jury instruction issue for appellate review, a
party must object on the record stating the issue ‘distinctly’ and specifying the
grounds of his or her objection. If a party does not timely object, the issue is not
preserved for review.”); State v. Studhorse,
, 7 N.W.3d 253 (“A
party waives an error when the party is given the opportunity to address it and
intentionally relinquishes the opportunity.”). When finalizing the jury
1
instructions at trial, Lewellyn was asked by the court if there was anything else
to discuss and Lewellyn’s attorney responded in the negative. Lewellyn’s failure
to preserve the jury instruction issue constitutes a waiver. We affirm pursuant to
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
III
[¶4] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
[¶5] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
Douglas A. Bahr
2
