State v. Clairmont

2022 ND 25, 969 N.W.2d 708

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: January 27, 2022
• Docket: 20210219
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JANUARY 27, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 25

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Guy Clairmont, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210219

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven E. McCullough, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Robert C. Vallie and Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, Fargo, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Richard E. Edinger, Fargo, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. State v. Clairmont No. 20210219

[¶1] Guy Clairmont appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Clairmont argues the district court erred in denying his N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion because sufficient evidence did not exist to support the conviction. He also argues the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because it made no effort to obtain certain exculpatory evidence.

[¶2] The district court did not err in denying Clairmont’s N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion, and the State did not violate Brady. An analysis under Brady is appropriate only when the State suppresses evidence that has been collected and preserved. State v. Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶ 13, 817 N.W.2d 332. In Schmidt, at ¶ 13, the State did not violate Brady because the State did not collect the evidence sought by the defendant. Here, similar to Schmidt, the State did not collect the evidence sought by Clairmont. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte