State v. Van Halsey
| Citation | 970 N.W.2d 227 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20210090 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Mitchell VAN HALSEY, Defendant and Appellant |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
David L. Rappenecker (argued) and Mindy L. Anderson (on brief), Assistant State's Attorneys, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
[¶1] Mitchell Halsey appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of attempted contact by bodily fluids, preventing arrest, and possession of controlled substances. Halsey argues the district court erred by admitting evidence identifying the felony charge underlying the arrest warrant. We affirm.
[¶2] In August of 2020, two law enforcement officers were dispatched to an outdoor food vendor in Bismarck after receiving reports of two intoxicated individuals passed out under a picnic table. Officer Mehrer, one of the responding officers, was able to immediately identify Halsey as one of the individuals because of his prior encounters with Halsey. Officer Mehrer checked Halsey's name with dispatch and learned there was a warrant for his arrest. While Halsey was being placed under arrest, methamphetamine was discovered in his pocket. Further, when Officer Mehrer placed Halsey into the patrol car, Halsey informed him that he had recently tested positive for Covid. Officer Mehrer began to place a facemask over Halsey's face, but during this process, Halsey coughed in Officer Mehrer's direction. Officer Mehrer then transported Halsey to the hospital to be medically cleared because Halsey was severely intoxicated.
[¶3] After Halsey was medically cleared, he was taken back to Officer Mehrer's patrol car to be transported to the jail. Upon being placed back into the car, Halsey slid out onto the ground and refused to get back up. When Officer Mehrer told him to get up, Halsey responded, Officer Mehrer called for additional assistance after Halsey refused to comply. After a second officer arrived, they were able to lift him into the patrol car. He was ultimately charged with attempting contact by bodily fluids, preventing arrest, and possession of methamphetamine.
[¶4] During his testimony at the jury trial, Officer Mehrer identified the underlying charge in the case that was the source of the warrant. After Officer Mehrer was asked whether he confirmed that Halsey had a valid warrant, Officer Mehrer responded, stating, Defense counsel did not object. The State then authenticated and moved to admit the warrant, which described the charge as "Aggravated assault–Dangerous weapon." Defense counsel objected under N.D.R.Ev. 403 and 404(b). The court overruled the objection. The jury ultimately found Halsey guilty of all three charges.
[¶5] The State first argues Halsey failed to preserve the Rule 403 and 404(b) issues for appeal because he "failed to timely object to the first naming of the underlying charge during Officer Mehrer's testimony." We have long held "that an effective appeal of any issue must be appropriately raised in the trial court in order for us to intelligently rule on it." State v. Thomas , 2020 ND 30, ¶ 12, 938 N.W.2d 897. Rule 103(a), N.D.R.Ev., provides:
An objection must be made "at the time the alleged error occurs to allow the district court to take appropriate action to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted." Westby v. Schmidt , 2010 ND 44, ¶ 12, 779 N.W.2d 681.
[¶6] While Halsey did not object immediately after Officer Mehrer mentioned the underlying charge contained within the arrest warrant, he did object moments later when the State offered the warrant into evidence.
[¶7] This Court has repeatedly held that a party must object at the time the error occurs during trial to preserve an issue for appeal. In State v. Hayek , a party failed to object to a "nonresponsive portion of [a] witness's answer" during the witness's testimony. 2004 ND 211, ¶ 10, 689 N.W.2d 422. The party "did not notify the trial court of the error until two witnesses later." Id. This Court held that the defendant's failure to object to the testimony "when it occurred" constitutes a failure to preserve the error for review on appeal. Id. (citing State v. Anderson , 2003 ND 30, ¶ 7, 657 N.W.2d 245 ). An unpreserved error may be reviewed on appeal only for obvious error. Anderson , 2003 ND 30, ¶ 8, 657 N.W.2d 245 (citing N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) ). Additionally, in State v. Shick , while the officer was on the stand, each time the State offered evidence obtained from a vehicle search, the defense attorney stated "no objection."
2017 ND 134, ¶ 8, 895 N.W.2d 773. However, when the officer began testifying about the evidence obtained during the search on re-direct, the defense counsel objected. Id. This Court held that the defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by failing to object to the evidence initially when the State offered it. Id.
[¶8] Although this Court has yet to consider an objection that is delayed by mere moments, the Eighth Circuit has addressed a timeline similar to the one here. In United States v. Adejumo , counsel raised an objection "mere moments" after an exhibit was admitted and published to the jury. 772 F.3d 513, 523–24 (8th Cir. 2014). Because defense counsel "did not wait until the end of [the witness's] testimony," there "was still ample opportunity for the judge to prevent further potential damage." Id. at 524. Thus, the issue was in fact preserved for appeal. Id.
[¶9] We conclude Halsey's objection was timely to preserve the issue for appeal. Halsey's objection was made moments after the first mention of the aggravated assault charge in the same series of questions to the same witness. Similar to Adejumo , Halsey's counsel raised the objection "mere moments" after Officer Mehrer mentioned the underlying charge for the first time. Because there was still "ample opportunity" for the court to provide a remedy, the timeliness requirement in Rule 103(a)(1)(A) was satisfied.
[¶10] The State next argues that because Halsey failed to delineate the specific grounds for his objection at trial, this Court "should refuse to address his arguments for the first time on appeal." A party is required to make a specific objection "to evidence at the time it is offered for admission into evidence to give the opposing party an opportunity to argue the objection and attempt to cure the defective foundation, and to give the trial court an opportunity to fully understand the objection and appropriately rule on it." May v. Sprynczynatyk , 2005 ND 76, ¶ 26, 695 N.W.2d 196. This Court has "commented on the requirement in N.D.R.Ev. 103(a)(1) that a party state the specific ground of objection," stating:
[¶11] Halsey's objection at the trial was as follows:
[¶12] We conclude the grounds for Halsey's 403 and 404(b) objection were apparent from the context, alleviating the need to articulate more specific grounds for his objection. We hold that this objection indicating the specific evidence rules by number supporting the grounds for the objection was sufficient to satisfy the requirement in Rule 103(a)(1)(B).
[¶13] We now turn to the merits of Halsey's argument that the district court erred in admitting the warrant and allowing testimony identifying the underlying charge described in the warrant. This Court reviews a court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hirschkorn , 2020 ND 268, ¶ 6, 952 N.W.2d 225. "A district court abuses its discretion in evidentiary rulings when it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law." State v. Polk , 2020 ND 248, ¶ 10, 950 N.W.2d 764.
[¶14] Rule 404(b), N.D.R.Ev., governs the admissibility of evidence involving a prior crime, wrong, or other act. It provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Samaniego
-
State v. Thomas
...number supporting the grounds for the objection is sufficient to satisfy N.D.R.Ev. 103(a)(1)(B). State v. Van Halsey , 2022 ND 31, ¶ 12, 970 N.W.2d 227. [¶18] Here, Thomas did not object to the admission of the statement under N.D.R.Ev. 404. When the district court considered the statement ......