State v. Reiswig

1

2024 ND 153

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Victoria Brooke Reiswig, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240048

Supreme Court of North Dakota

August 1, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

Isaac O. Lees, Assistant State's Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for plaintiff and appellee.

Chad R. McCabe, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.

OPINION

JENSEN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

[¶ 1] Victoria Reiswig appeals from a district court judgment entered following a N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) conditional guilty plea to the charge of corruption of a minor, a class C felony, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-05(2). Reiswig argues the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss based on corpus delicti, asserting the State failed to corroborate her confession to law enforcement and provided no evidence a sexual act occurred as defined by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-02(4). We affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss and the judgment.

I

[¶ 2] In 2023, Reiswig was charged with corruption of a minor, a class C felony, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-05(2). Reiswig filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of corpus delicti, arguing the State lacked sufficient evidence to corroborate her confession and there was insufficient evidence of a sexual act having occurred between her and the minor.

[¶ 3] A hearing was held on Reiswig's motion to dismiss during which testimony was provided by an employee of the youth home where the victim had resided ("employee"), the resident of the apartment where the incident occurred ("resident"), a school resource officer ("officer"), and the detective who conducted the interview of Reiswig ("detective"). Additionally, the State provided Reiswig's video interview, an email sent by Reiswig to explain an incident involving the minor, and photos of the victim's car with a female in the passenger seat alleged to be Reiswig.

[¶ 4] In the course of the interview, Reiswig elaborated on her relationship with the victim and admitted to the detective "Well, we did have sex yes." She indicated this occurred at the resident's apartment during Christmas break of 2022, on or about the 22^nd of December.

[¶ 5] The district court denied the motion, finding Reiswig did not dispute that the confession was voluntary. The court found that during the confession, Reiswig's demeanor appeared to be comfortable and cooperative. The evidence incuded testimony of the resident indicating Reiswig and the victim were present and alone at her apartment at the time when Reiswig stated in the confession the sexual act occurred, testimony from the employee regarding a romantic phone call between Reiswig and the victim, and testimony of the officer regarding an email sent by Reiswig and facts surrounding an October 2022 reckless driving investigation he conducted. The court's findings included the following: "While it is true that each of these pieces of testimony and evidence, if looked at independently of one another, do not show that a sexual act occurred, the totality of the testimony and evidence fortifies the truth of Reiswig's confession."

[¶ 6] Reiswig subsequently entered a N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2) conditional plea of guilty to corruption of a minor, reserving her ability to appeal the denial of her motion to dismiss.

II

[¶ 7] In reviewing a motion to dismiss in a criminal proceeding this Court's standard of review is the same as that of a motion to suppress. State v. Kukert, 2021 ND 192, ¶¶ 10-11, 965 N.W.2d 849. "Our review is limited to only those issues raised in the district court." State v. Nice, 2019 ND 73, ¶ 5, 924 N.W.2d 102.

On appeal, a district court's decision on a motion to suppress will not be reversed if, after conflicting testimony is resolved in favor of affirmance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We recognize the importance of the district court's opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility, and we accord great deference to its decision in suppression matters. Questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal, and whether a finding of fact meets a legal standard is a question of law.

Kukert, at ¶ 10 (cleaned up). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if, although there may be some evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." State v. Hatzenbuehler, 2023 ND 192, ¶ 6, 996 N.W.2d 649 (quoting State v. Ballweg, 2003 ND 153, ¶ 14, 670 N.W.2d 490).

[¶ 8] Reiswig argues the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss based on the corpus delicti doctrine. She asserts the State failed to produce sufficient corroborating evidence of her confession to law enforcement and the only evidence of a crime is her confession.

"Corpus delicti" means "body of the crime." The state must be able to prove in a crime involving damage to persons or property that the injury for which the accused confessed did occur, and that some person was criminally responsible for it. These two factors comprise the so-called corpus delicti. The general rule is that an accused may not be convicted on his uncorroborated confession. However, the evidence establishing the corpus delicti-independent of the accused's extrajudicial admission-need not be conclusive.

State v. Jelinek, 2024 ND 114, ¶ 15 (cleaned up).

[¶ 9] In Jelinek, we clarified we employ a trustworthiness approach when analyzing whether a confession is sufficiently corroborated. 2024 ND 114, ¶ 17.

Where, as here, there is no tangible evidence of the crime confessed, the Government must introduce substantial independent evidence establishing the reliability or trustworthiness of the defendant's statement.

One way in which the Government may establish a confession's trustworthiness is to offer independent evidence that bolsters the

...