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

Summary

The court affirmed Paul's conviction for gross sexual imposition, holding that the district court properly admitted expert testimony concerning delayed disclosure of child sexual abuse, L.L.'s out-of-court statements, and evidence of prior sexual acts involving the same victim. The court also held that the evidence, including L.L.'s testimony that Paul made her touch his penis, was sufficient to support the verdict. Chief Justice Gerald W. Vande Walle concurred in the result without stating a separate substantive rationale.

Holding

Admission of expert testimony. The district court did not abuse its discretion by qualifying the counselor as an expert and allowing her to testify about delayed reporting of sexual abuse and children's presentation when disclosing abuse.

Admission of L.L.'s out-of-court statements. The district court did not commit reversible or obvious error by admitting L.L.'s statements to her sister, grandmother, and the social worker under the child-sexual-abuse hearsay exception.

Admission of prior sexual acts involving the same victim. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of Paul's prior sexual acts against L.L. because the acts were not wholly independent crimes but were activity in furtherance of the same criminal activity; alternatively, the evidence was admissible for permissible purposes under Rule 404(b).

Sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction because L.L.'s testimony that Paul made her touch his privates established the charged sexual contact, and a child's uncorroborated testimony can support a sexual-offense conviction.