State v. Rogers

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the reversal of his jointly tried codefendant's conviction did not require the same remedy because the defendant was not similarly situated or equally harmed and had not preserved an objection to the state's late expert disclosure. The court also declined to review the defendant's unpreserved challenge to the admission of cell site location evidence because retroactivity of a new nonconstitutional evidentiary rule does not excuse preservation requirements. The court declined to overrule its precedent requiring preservation of such claims.