Gaddie v. State

1

2024 ND 170

David Walter Gaddie, Petitioner and Appellant v. State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20240052

Supreme Court of North Dakota

August 28, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Judicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.

Monty G. Mertz, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Nicholas S. Samuelson, Special Assistant State's Attorney, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellee.

CROTHERS, JUSTICE.

[¶ 1] David Gaddie appeals from a judgment denying his application for postconviction relief. Gaddie has established prosecutorial misconduct occurred during his criminal trial and he suffered prejudice as a result. We reverse the judgment denying Gaddie postconviction relief and remand the case with instructions for the district court to vacate the criminal judgment and enter other supplementary orders as required by N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-11.

I

[¶ 2] The State charged Gaddie with four counts of gross sexual imposition alleging he sexually abused a child. In a separate case, the State charged Gaddie with three counts of gross sexual imposition alleging he sexually abused the child's mother. The case concerning the mother was dismissed. The remaining case proceeded to trial. The jury found Gaddie guilty on all counts. On direct appeal Gaddie raised issues related to the jury instructions. We reversed the conviction on one count due to an unanimity problem in the jury instructions. See State v. Gaddie, 2022 ND 44 ¶ 15, 971 N.W.2d 811.

[¶ 3] Gaddie filed an application for postconviction relief and later an amended application. He asserted various claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The State moved for partial summary dismissal based on misuse of process asserting Gaddie should have brought his claim for prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. The district court reserved ruling on the State's motion and held a postconviction relief hearing. The court heard testimony from Gaddie, his trial attorney, Matthew Dearth, and the two prosecutors who tried the case. Gaddie asked Dearth and the prosecutors about pre-trial discussions they had concerning a forensic interview of the child. Dearth testified the State told him it would not offer statements about Gaddie sexually abusing the child's mother that were included in a video of the interview. The prosecutors recalled discussing possible redactions with Dearth but testified they did not make any redactions because Dearth did not ask them to do so.

[¶ 4] The district court denied the State's motion for partial summary dismissal. The court reasoned Gaddie's claim for prosecutorial misconduct was not misuse of process because it was based on evidence outside the criminal case record. The court found the following occurred at trial:

"During trial, the state offered a transcript of an interview Gaddie gave to law enforcement and also offered the video as an exhibit. Neither party objected. The video was received as an exhibit, and a transcript of the video was laid on the juror's chairs for them to use when they returned to the courtroom. The State asked to publish the video, and the request was granted. As the State began to play the video, Dearth asked for a sidebar. The video was stopped. Dearth indicated to the Court that the video contained statements that he objected to the jury hearing. Despite the fact that the video had already been offered and received with no objection, the Court consulted with counsel outside the presence of the jury. The State indicated it was not aware of Dearth's objections to the video. Nevertheless, the State indicated it would attempt to redact the versions of the video to which Dearth now objected."

[¶ 5] The record contains two transcripts of the video. The first was entered in the docket as "Unredacted Transcribed Statement of [the Child]." The second was entered in the docket as "Redacted Transcribed Statement of [the Child]." The transcripts are identical except for page 13, where the following language is redacted in the second transcript:

"A. Um when I explained it to her she told me what it was called and um she said that um he sexually abused me and then um I figured since he did it to me that he did it to my mom because that I knew he did it to my mom before he did it to me and so basically it happened to my mom well and me. [Verbatim.]

Q. K, so used sexually abused me and my mom, you just told me that. [Verbatim.]

A. My mom well grammer [sic]."

The second discussion of sexual abuse related to the child's mother begins on page 35. This discussion is not redacted in either transcript:

"Q. Ok, thank you for correcting me. K, you said when DAVID was trying to, and you said his private part into your private part and you said you felt that wet slimy thing and you said he got scared, how do you know he got scared?

A. Because he stopped and I feel like he would, he kept going with my mom because he knew my mom was scared, just like my brother's mom . . . . They were always like back down and once [verbatim] to just like sit there and cry while he yelled at them . . . .

Q. Ok. S-.

A. 'Cause he did stop.

Q. So he didn't stop until you told your mom. You said that, um you said something about he didn't stop when he was doing this to your mom, tell me about that.

A. Um well . . . um I don't know. I accidentally read my mom's notebook and I thought he was like pulling her hair and that's why she was screaming.

Q. K.

A. But when I read her notebook that was so.

Q. K, tell me about this notebook, where'd you get it at?

A. Um, my m- they gave it to her at the shelter to write what he did, but I didn't know what was what it's for um' cause it started with like stuff like I don't know um how many dates it was or um stuff like that, so I just kept reading it and, that's why she was screaming what it said.

Q. K. What do you remember reading?

A. [S]aid that um he, it said um that uh he pushed her into the bunk bed and I don't know 'cause this is all I read, he pushed her into the bunk bed um covered her mouth so that she couldn't well no, it said um he pushed her into the bunk bed um took his finger and stuck it like you know you, like he went like that in her private area and when she tried to scream he covered her mouth um and then she saw me reading it and that's all I got."

[¶ 6] The district court denied Gaddie postconviction relief. As to Gaddie's claim for prosecutorial misconduct, the court reasoned "[t]here is absolutely nothing in the record that indicates the State engaged in some sort of nefarious plot or scheme to introduce evidence to which the Defense objected." The court characterized the situation as a misunderstanding and noted "all attorneys involved in the trial agree that regardless of what led to the confusion, none of the objectionable portions of the video where presented to the jury." Gaddie appeals from the judgment denying him postconviction relief.

II

[¶ 7] Gaddie asserts the statements about him sexually abusing the child's mother are inadmissible evidence of a prior bad act. He argues the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when it offered the prior bad act evidence without providing the requisite notice. He asserts the evidence and misconduct caused prejudice entitling him to postconviction relief.

[¶ 8] The Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch 29-32.1, governs postconviction relief proceedings. Isac v. State, 2023 ND 181, ¶ 5, 996 N.W.2d 296. The applicant bears the burden of establishing grounds for relief. Id. This Court reviews findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. "'A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if it is not supported by any evidence, or if, although there is some evidence to support the finding, a reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.'" Id. (quoting Morris v. State, 2019 ND 166, ¶ 6, 930 N.W.2d 195). The Court reviews questions of law de novo. Isac, at ¶ 5.

[¶ 9] To establish prosecutorial misconduct, an applicant must show (1) the prosecutor's actions constitute misconduct, and (2) the misconduct had a prejudicial effect. State v. Lyman, 2022 ND 160, ¶ 8, 978 N.W.2d 734. The prosecutorial misconduct must be significant enough to infringe upon the defendant's right to a fair trial. State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 12, 796 N.W.2d 672; see also State v. Kruckenberg, 2008 ND 212, ¶ 20, 758 N.W.2d 427. "In making that determination, this Court decides if the conduct, 'in the context of the entire trial, was sufficiently prejudicial to violate a defendant's due process rights.'" Lyman, at ¶ 8 (quoting State v. Foster, 2020 ND 85, ¶ 17, 942 N.W.2d 829). "This Court applies a de novo standard of review when determining 'whether facts rise to the level of a constitutional violation, including a claim that prosecutorial misconduct denied a defendant's due process right to a fair trial.'" State v. Jasmann, 2015 ND 101, ¶ 5, 862 N.W.2d 809 (quoting State v. Pena Garcia, 2012 ND 11, ¶ 6, 812 N.W.2d 328).

A

[¶ 10] The first issue is whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred. Resolution of this question requires us to decide whether the evidence at issue was admissible, and if it was not, whether the State engaged in misconduct by offering it. See State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 804 (Minn. 2012) (stating "it is misconduct for a prosecutor to knowingly offer inadmissible evidence for the purpose of bringing it to the jury's attention").

[¶ 11] North Dakota Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs our analysis of the evidentiary issue. It provides:

"(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

(1)Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not

...