State v. Poulor
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Kanakai Poulor, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : SEXUAL OFFENSE
- Appeal From
Case No. 2018-CR-01630
East Central Judicial District, Cass County
Douglas R. Herman
Parties' Statement of Issues
The prosecution violated the Confrontation Clause when it presented, pursuant to N.D.R. Ev. 803(24), the substance of a testimonial forensic interview through the trial testimony of a lay witness who took no part in the recorded forensic interview, where defendant had no opportunity to confront the forensic interviewer who interviewed B.F.
The District Court erred by overruling defendant’s objection to admit into evidence B.F.’s out of court statements about sexual abuse pursuant to N.D.R. Ev. 803(24).
The evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of Gross Sexual Imposition.
I.The Defendant was afforded full rights to confront his accuser at trial.
II.The district court did not abuse its discretion allowing evidence under Rule 803(24).
III.The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition.
Kanakai Poulor appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition.
In April 2018, the State charged Poulor with one count of gross sexual imposition, a class A felony, alleging that in May 2017 Poulor had touched eight-year-old B.F. between her legs, inside her pants and underwear. In August 2018, the district court held a trial, and the case was tried to a jury. The jury subsequently found Poulor guilty of gross sexual imposition.
On appeal, Poulor argues the State violated the Confrontation Clause when it presented the substance of a testimonial forensic interview through the trial testimony of a lay witness who took no part in the recorded forensic interview, where Poulor had no opportunity to confront the forensic interviewer who interviewed B.F. Poulor also argues that the district court erred by overruling his objection to admit into evidence B.F.’s out-of-court statements about sexual abuse and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of gross sexual imposition.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||01/16/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 01/16/2019|
|2||01/16/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 01/18/2019|
|3||01/17/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||01/17/2019||Notice served on Marquis R. Bradshaw and Ryan J. Youngren|
|5||02/12/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-35, 38-64)|
|6||02/13/2019||Received by U.S. Mail, docket entries 36 & 37 (2 discs)|
|7||02/13/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPTS DATED JUNE 21, 2018 and key, JULY 25, 2018, JANUARY 7, 2019 and key & C.O.S.|
|8||02/13/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED MAY 24, 2018 & C.O.S.|
|9||02/19/2019||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to 6-21-18 and 1-7-19 transcripts (redacted) and Redaction Keys|
|10||02/20/2019||Rec'd additional non-substantive corrections to 6-21-18 (redacted) and amended redaction key|
|11||02/25/2019||1ST ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 65-67)|
|12||03/18/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED 8-7-18, 8-8-18, 8-9-18 & C.O.S. and KEY|
|15||04/26/2019||Have we rec'd $25 surcharge by IDB for ATB? (delete when satisfied) : 06/01/2019|
|16||05/01/2019||Rec'd c.o.s. on K. Poulor|
|17||04/30/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB & ATA from CSD|
|18||05/22/2019||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|20||05/30/2019||Received non-substantive corrections to AEB (redaction) & proof of service|
|21||05/31/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating|
|22||06/05/2019||Received $25 e-filing surcharge for AEB (Receipt #27104)|
|23||06/06/2019||Rec'd notification Amy Carlson is taking this case from here on out as counsel for appellant.|