State v. Montenegro

2023 ND 198

• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
• Decided: October 26, 2023
• Docket: 20230088
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OCTOBER 26, 2023 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 198

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Holidahon H. Montenegro, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230088

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable M. Jason McCarthy, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ashlei A. Neufeld, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Alexander D. Kiser, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Mark C. Sherer, Dickinson, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. State v. Montenegro No. 20230088

[¶1] Holidahon Montenegro appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of harassment. She argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury verdict and the harassment conviction violates her constitutional right to free speech under N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. “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. Rai, 2019 ND 71, ¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410 (cleaned up). After reviewing the record, we conclude sufficient evidence exists for a jury to draw a reasonable inference Montenegro committed the charged offense.

[¶2] We conclude Montenegro failed to raise a constitutional argument in the district court, and thus the issue was not preserved for appeal. State v. Blumler, 458 N.W.2d 300, 303 (N.D. 1990) (“Issues which are not raised before the trial court, including constitutional issues, will not be considered for the first time on appeal.”); State v. Curtis, 2008 ND 93, ¶ 11, 748 N.W.2d 709 (rejecting free speech argument where defendant failed to raise issue in district court). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

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