### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOT A

2024 ND 79

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Jason Robert Pederson a/k/a Katheryn Pederson, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230318

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Constance L. Cleveland , Judge.

AFFIRMED.
Opinion of the Court by Bahr , Justice.
Jason Van Horn, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND , for plaintiff and appellee.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND , for defen dant and appellant.1 State v. Pederson No. 20230318

Bahr , Justice.
[¶1] Jason (a.k.a. Katheryn) Pederson appeals from a criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict finding her guilty of one count of terrorizing. We conclude Pederson did not establish a Brady violation . We further conclude Pederson did not preserve the issue of insufficient evidence because she failed
to move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, and did not argue obvious error. We affirm.

I
[¶2] Following the termination of her employment , Pederson filed an employment discrimination lawsuit in f ederal c ourt against her former employer

. O n December 29, 2022 , Pederson sent an email to her former employer , writing, “ Consistent with the mos t recent order/motion I intend to retrieve damages. If the Defending party wishes to pay $107,000 within 7 days, else I will retrieve damages through the taking of physical assets. ” O n January 6, 2023 , Pederson sent a second email , which stated , “ Consisten t with the previous email and aforementioned court filings I ’ ll be in the Defendant ’ s location some time next week with my tools. Please inform the Defendant ’ s employees to stay out of the way. I would like to avoid any unnecessary deaths if at all possibl e. ”

[¶3] After receiving these emails , Pederson ’ s former employer contacted law enforcement

. O fficer Tanner Anderson spoke with Pederson by telephone on January 8, 2023 to inform her she was trespass ed from her former employer’s property, meaning she could not go on her former employer’s property. Officer Anderson recorded the conversation on his bodycam

. [¶4] O fficers arrested Pederson on January 10, 2023

. The State charged Pederson with one count of terrorizing

. The charge was based on her emails to her former empl oyer. Pederson submitted a N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 disclosure request to the State, and filed a motion to compel discovery

. The State did not2

turn over to Pederson the bodycam recording of Officer Anderson ’ s January 8, 2023 telephone conversation with her.

[¶5] The di strict court held a two

- day jury trial

. Pederson represented herself. At the pretrial conference, Pederson argued the State violated Brady because it did no t provide her the recording of her conversation with Officer Anderson. The court stated they would a ddress the issue when Officer Anderson takes the stand.

[¶6] After a recess, the State informed the district court that there would have been a bodycam of the conversation between Officer Anderson and Pederson. The State argued any statements on the recording a re not relevant because they relate to the trespass, not the terrorizing charge. The State explained it did not provide the recording to Pederson because the recording was filed in the civil trespass file , not the criminal case. Pederson responded, “the State has acknowledged, there is a recording and they were aware of it. So I don ’ t think [Officer Anderson] should be able to testify if there is a recording and the State failed to turn it over in time.” The court found the State ’ s failure to disclose the recording was not intentional , and that because the recording exist s , although in a different file, the State must provide it before Officer Anderson is called as a witness

. The court also said it would provide Pederson time to re view the recording and decide how to use it before Officer Anderson testifies.

[¶7] Following a recess during voir dire, the State informed the district court it did not know if the recording still exists. After the court stated it is not sure what the appropri ate remedy is, or even what remedy Pederson is requesting, Pederson responded, “I would say that I would want Anderson to testify with regard to his failure to provide the recording.” The court responded that, depen d ing on how things progress, later motion s can be made regarding the issue.

[¶8] The State updated the district court and Pederson regarding the recording after the noon recess. The State explained that because the bodycam video was logged in under the trespass file , it was “automatically deleted afte r3

180 days. So the video itself is no longer in existence, and that ’ s the update that I have for the court and for Ms. Pederson.” The court found the State ’ s lack of disclosure was not intentional , and held preventing Officer Anderson from testifying is no t warranted based on the nature of the recording and the State ’ s disclosure of a police report and email regarding the conversation between Officer Anderson and Pederson. It continued, “We are acknowledging that a recording did exist, and certainly determi ning what happened to that and what would be available to Ms. Pederson on cross

- examination should the State choose to call Officer Tanner Anderson.”

[¶9] During the State ’ s direct examination of Office r Anderson, the State questioned Officer Anderson about inf orming Pederson of being trespassed , about him recording the conversation on his bodycam, and about what happened to the recording. Pederson cross

- examined Officer Anderson about the recording being deleted, among other things.

[¶10] On the second day of trial , the State informed the district court and Pederson that it located two bodycam recording s relating to the case. Neither recording was of the conversation between Officer Anderson and Pederson . The court held an in camera review of the recording s with the State and Pederson present

. After the in camera review of the two videos, the court noted the recording of the conversation between Officer Anderson and Pederson is still missing. After stating the recording of the communication between Officer Anderso n and her is still missing, Pederson said , “I don ’ t know what the remedy for that would be.” Pederson did not make any motion or request any relief due to the missing recording. The trial continued. At the conclusion of trial, t he jury found Pederson guilt y of terrorizing.

II
[¶11] Pederson argues the State ’ s failure to preserve and disclose the recording of her convers at ion with Officer Anderson is a Brady violation

. [¶12] Under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) , “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favor able to an accused violates due process if the evidence is material to guilt or punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad4

faith of the prosecution.” State v. Kolstad , 2020 ND 97, ¶ 19, 942 N.W.2d 865

. A Brady violation occurs when:
(1) the governmen t possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.

State v. Schweitzer , 2021 ND 109, ¶ 3, 961 N.W.2d 310 (quoting Kolstad , at ¶ 19). “The undisclosed material must be plainly exculpatory; Brady does not apply to evidence that might have been exculpatory.” State v. Horn , 2014 ND 230, ¶ 21, 857 N.W.2d 77. “ There is no Brady violation if the defendant fails to demonstrate the evidence was favorable to him .” Id.

[¶13] The State admits it had , but never tu rned over to Pederson , the recording of her conversation with Officer Anderson

. The State explains the recording

was saved under a different file number , not retrieved when requested by Pederson, and deleted after 180 days. Although the State possessed the recording and did not disclose it to Pederson , we do not need to decide whether the State ’ s action constitutes suppression of the recording because Pederson has not satisfied the first prong of the Brady test. See Kolstad , 2020 ND 97, ¶ 23 (“Evidence that has not been collected or preserved raises issues involving categories one and two but does not invoke Brady or an analysis under category three.”).

[¶14] Under the first prong , Pederson must demonstrate the recording was favorable to her or plainly exculpatory. As argued by the State, and found by the district court, the recording did not directly relate to the terrorizing charge against Pederson. The State charged Pederson for conduct occurring between November 29, 2022 and January 6, 2023. Pederson sent the emails that are the bas i s of the charge on December 29, 2022 and January 6, 2023

. Her conversation with O fficer Anderson was on January 8, 2023, two days after Pederson sent the second email. The State did not charge Pederson with terrorizing based on her conversation with Officer Anderson. Pederson has not5

demonstrated how a recording of her conversation with Officer Anderson , days after she sent the emails , would exculpat e her of the charge of terrorizing

. [¶15] The district court did n ot err when it determined the recording was not relevant to the charge of terrorizing. We conclude Pederson has not met her burden of demonstrating the recording was evidence favorable to her

.
III
[¶16] Pederson argues there is insufficient evidence to sustain a co nviction.

[¶17] “Regarding the preservation of a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appeal, this Court has held the defendant must move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 to preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for review in a jury trial.” State v. Rourke , 2017 ND 102, ¶ 7, 893 N.W.2d 176. “A self

represented litigant is not granted leniency because of his status and is bound by the rules of procedure.” State v. Hamre , 2019 ND 86, ¶ 18, 924 N.W.2d 776.

[¶18] Pederson did not move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29. Therefore, the issue of sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved. Pederson also did not brief or argue “grounds for seeking review of an issue not preserved,” as required by N.D.R.App.P. 28(b) (7)(B)(ii). See State v. Wiese , 2024 ND 39, ¶ 7 (“ Appellate rules must be complied with and treated respectfully. ”). An

“ exception to the requirement of a motion for judgment of acquittal is if the trial court committed obvious error.” Rourke , 2017 ND 102, ¶ 7 (quoting City of Fargo v. Lunday , 2009 ND 9, ¶ 5, 760 N.W.2d 136 ) . However, Pederson did not argue the district court committed obvious error

. T herefore , this Court will not consider whether the court committed obvious error

. State v. Hansford , 2019 N D 52, ¶ 29, 923 N.W.2d 113 (“We only decide issues that have been thoroughly briefed and argued.”)

. [¶19] We conclude Pederson did not preserve the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain her conviction.6 IV
[¶20] We have considered the parties ’ other a rguments and conclude they are unnecessary for the decision or are without merit. We affirm.

[¶21] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr