STATE v. MONTENEGRO (2023)

[¶1] Holidahon Montenegro appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of harassment. She argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict and the harassment conviction violates her constitutional right to free speech under N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. “In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Rai, 2019 ND 71, ¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410 (cleaned up). After reviewing the record, we conclude sufficient evidence exists for a jury to draw a reasonable inference Montenegro committed the charged offense.

[¶2] We conclude Montenegro failed to raise a constitutional argument in the district court, and thus the issue was not preserved for appeal. State v. Blumler, 458 N.W.2d 300, 303 (N.D. 1990) (“Issues which are not raised before the trial court, including constitutional issues, will not be considered for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Curtis, 2008 ND 93, ¶ 11, 748 N.W.2d 709 (rejecting free speech argument where defendant failed to raise issue in district court). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Per Curiam.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr