Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Bejan David ETEMAD, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2018-11-06
Citations: 919 N.W.2d 192
Docket Number: No. 20170421
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Bejan David ETEMAD, Defendant and Appellant
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 919
Pages: 192–192

Head Matter:
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Bejan David ETEMAD, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20170421
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed November 6, 2018
Thomas A. Gehrz, Assistant State's Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Russell J. Myhre, Valley City, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Bejan David Etemad appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of terrorizing. Etemad argues the verdict of guilty is not supported by sufficient evidence. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), concluding sufficient evidence supports Etemad's conviction.
[¶ 2] Etemad also argues the State violated his due process rights by failing to comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) when it introduced into evidence bodycam footage Etemad claimed he had not received in discovery. Etemad failed to raise that argument before the district court. This Court reviews for obvious error despite a party's failure to properly raise the issue if the error is one that "affects substantial rights." N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Etemad failed to demonstrate admission of the bodycam footage significantly prejudiced him. See State v. Horn , 2014 ND 230, ¶ 12, 857 N.W.2d 77 ("A substantial right has not been denied unless the violation significantly prejudiced the defendant."). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
[¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte
Jon J. Jensen