I N T H E S U P R EM E C O U R T

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 153

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Victoria Brooke Reiswig, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240048

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the 

Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Jensen, Chief Justice.

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

Chad R. McCabe, Bismarck, ND, for defendant and appellant.
1

State v. Reiswig

No. 20240048

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 22nd 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 
2

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 
3

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 accuracy of 

the confession itself, thereby proving the offense through the statements of 

the accused. This corroborating evidence need not be sufficient, on its own, 

to establish the body of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Rather, corroborative evidence is sufficient 

if it merely fortifies the truth of the confession without independently 

establishing the crime charged. The Government thus bears the burden of 

offering enough evidence in support of the essential facts of a confession to 

support a jury’s inference of their truth. It is required merely that the 

prosecution produce independent evidence sufficiently supporting the 

essential admitted facts to justify a jury inference of the truth of the admitted 

facts or tending to establish the trustworthiness of the confession.

Under this trustworthiness approach to the corroboration rule, the quantity 

and type of independent evidence necessary to corroborate a confession 

depends upon the facts of each case. Corroborative facts may be of any kind, 

so long as they tend to produce confidence in the truth of the confession. 

Thus, circumstantial evidence may justify a jury’s inference that a 

defendant’s statement is true.

Id. (cleaned up).

[¶10] Under this approach, the district court looks to a statement made in its entirety and 

the facts and circumstances in which it was made to determine if it is reliable and 

trustworthy. This Court then reviews the findings under a clearly erroneous standard.
4

[¶11] Here, the district court’s findings were supported by testimony and evidence offered 

by the State. The State provided a copy of the video interview between Reiswig and the 

detective. The video shows Reiswig went to the interview on her own accord, the detective 

offered her something to drink, and was read her rights. The entire interview lasted a total 

of 1 hour and 24 minutes.

[¶12] The State further provided testimony of the resident, who indicated Reiswig and the 

victim were left alone in the living room of her apartment on December 22, 2022. The time 

and place testified to by the resident was consistent with the time and place Reiswig, during 

her interview, indicated the sexual act occurred.

[¶13] The employee testified the victim referred to Reiswig as his girlfriend. She 

recounted a romantic phone call she overheard between Reiswig and the victim, during 

which Reiswig told the victim she missed him, loved him, and would be sending him an 

article of her clothing to remember her by. Reiswig confirmed this phone call in her 

interview with law enforcement, admitting to giving the victim a sweater and saying she 

loved him.

[¶14] The officer testified to a reckless driving incident involving the victim in October 

2022 and his interactions with Reiswig after her name came up in the investigation. He 

stated she provided an email explanation of the incident, in which she indicated she had 

picked the victim up at his request that night. Her statement in the email was reiterated 

during her interview with law enforcement.

[¶15] The district court correctly applied the law, there is evidence in the record to support 

the findings, and after a review of the entire record we are not left with a define and firm 

conviction a mistake has been made. The court’s findings that the State sufficiently 

fortified the truth of Reiswig’s confession under the corpus delicti doctrine were not clearly 

erroneous.

III

[¶16] We affirm the denial of Reiswig’s motion to dismiss and affirm the criminal 

judgment.
5

[¶17] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr