STATE v. RUOT (2025)

[¶1] Marko Ruot appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of child abuse. On appeal, Ruot argues the district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony regarding the removal of the victim's pants.

[¶2] We conclude Ruot failed to properly preserve his challenge to the testimony of the victim and the victim's sister for appeal and did not brief the issue as an obvious error to this Court. State v. Rourke, 2017 ND 102, ¶ 8, 893 N.W.2d 176 (This Court “need not exercise our discretion to notice obvious error in an appeal when the defendant does not raise the issue of obvious error, because it is the defendant's burden to show an obvious error that effects a substantial right.”). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶3] Ruot challenges the testimony of a law enforcement officer regarding a 911 emergency call referring to the removal of the victim's pants. Ruot objected to the testimony as hearsay and the district court sustained the objection. Ruot did not request a curative instruction and the 911 telephone call had already been admitted into evidence. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Per Curiam.

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