STATE v. BUSCHE (2026)

[¶1] Theresa Lee Busche appeals from a criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict finding her guilty of disorderly conduct–offensive condition under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-01(1)(g). Busche argues there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. Busche also argues the district court erred by excluding testimony by sustaining the State's objection.

I

[¶2] “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. Pittsley, 2025 ND 158, ¶ 1, 25 N.W.3d 773 (quoting State v. Cahoon, 2023 ND 178, ¶ 1, 996 N.W.2d 313). After reviewing the record, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

II

[¶3] To preserve a claim of error when a court's evidentiary ruling excludes evidence, a party must make an offer of proof. State v. Taylor, 2025 ND 91, ¶ 9, 20 N.W.3d 678. When the district court sustained the State's objection, defense counsel made no offer of proof. Busche did not properly preserve her objection and did not brief the issue as an obvious error. See 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).

III

[¶4] We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Per Curiam..

[¶5] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese