STATE v. JALLOH (2024)

[¶1] Kindi Jalloh appeals from judgments entered after a jury found him guilty of tampering with evidence and murder. On appeal, Jalloh argues the district court erred in denying his N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for judgment of acquittal because the jury had insufficient evidence to find him guilty of tampering with evidence and murder.

[¶2] Jalloh did not preserve the issue of sufficiency of evidence on the tampering with evidence charge because, when making a Rule 29 motion specifically in regard to the murder charge, he conceded there was enough evidence to send the tampering with evidence charge to the jury. It is clear on the face of the record that Jalloh affirmatively waived this issue. State v. Helm, 2020 ND 155, ¶¶ 6-7, 946 N.W.2d 503; see State v. Studhorse, 2024 ND 110, ¶ 25, 7 N.W.3d 253 (declining to review a jury instruction issue waived by defendant's affirmative statement he had no request for changes to the instructions). After review of the record, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the murder charge. We summarily affirm the judgments 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