Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Connor BRADSHAW, Defendant and Appellant.
[¶1] Connor Bradshaw appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Bradshaw argues the district court erred by failing to use one of the remedies under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d) when the State disclosed a redacted version of a video at the beginning of trial.
[¶2] Prior to trial, the State disclosed the video of the victim's forensic interview. During the interview, the victim disclosed sexual abuse by Bradshaw occurred in both McHenry County and Ward County. Anticipating an objection by the defense, the State prepared a redacted version of the victim's interview which muted references to sexual acts in Ward County. Bradshaw's argument assumes a discovery violation occurred. However, he did not specifically argue to the district court that the State violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 16, nor did the court find that the State violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 16. Additionally, Bradshaw failed to renew his objection when the redacted video was offered into evidence. We conclude Bradshaw did not properly preserve this issue for appeal. State v. Horn, 2014 ND 230, ¶ 9, 857 N.W.2d 77 (“[A] party who fails to timely object to the admission of offered evidence cannot challenge its admission on appeal.”). When an issue has not been properly preserved for appeal, our review of the issue is limited to whether the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting substantial rights. Id. at ¶ 7. “A substantial right has not been denied unless the violation significantly prejudiced the defendant.” Id. at ¶ 12.
[¶3] If we assume a discovery violation occurred under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16, Bradshaw has failed to show how he was significantly prejudiced by the late disclosure or admission of the redacted video. The redacted version of the video muted references to sexual acts in a different county and the State had disclosed the full version of the victim's interview prior to trial. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of the redacted video. We affirm the criminal judgment.
VandeWalle, Justice.
[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20210306
Decided: June 08, 2022
Court: Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)