State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Rondale Grant, Defendant and Appellant (North Dakota 2009)

Summary

The court held that the nurse practitioner's report was properly admitted under the medical-diagnosis exception to hearsay, even though the district court incorrectly admitted it under the business-records exception. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support Grant's conviction for gross sexual imposition. It affirmed the conviction but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the criminal judgment.

Holding

Admissibility of the nurse practitioner's report. The report did not qualify as a business record because K.D.J. and Beth Johnson, whose statements were incorporated into the report, were not acting in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. Nevertheless, the report was admissible under the exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment because both declarants responded to questions asked for that purpose and Beth Johnson had a sufficiently close relationship to K.D.J. to satisfy the rule's trustworthiness rationale.

Sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because K.D.J.'s testimony described sexual contact constituting gross sexual imposition, and her testimony was supported by the nurse practitioner's report. Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational fact-finder could find Grant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Correction of the criminal judgment. The criminal judgment required correction because it stated that judgment was entered upon a guilty plea even though the jury returned the guilty verdict. The case was remanded to the district court to correct that clerical error.

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Rondale Grant, Defendant and Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by