Opinion ID: 1678513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony Regarding Other Items in the Apartment

Text: Raywalt asserts that the trial court erred in admitting testimony regarding other drug-related items which were discovered during the search of the apartment, arguing that the relevance of this evidence is clearly outweighed by its prejudicial effect pursuant to Rule 403, N.D.R.Evid. A review of the record, however, shows that Raywalt did not object to the evidence on Rule 403 grounds; rather, his objection at trial was that evidence of other paraphernalia was not listed in Section 12.1-31.1-02, N.D.C.C., which provides guidelines for determining whether an object is paraphernalia, and thus was not relevant. An issue not raised in the trial court is generally not reviewable on appeal unless it constitutes obvious error under Rule 52(b), N.D.R.Crim.P. State v. Kopp, 419 N.W.2d 169, 172 (N.D.1988); State v. Miller, 388 N.W.2d 522 (N.D.1986). Our authority to notice obvious error is exercised cautiously and only in exceptional situations where the defendant has suffered serious injustice. State v. Kopp, supra, 419 N.W.2d at 173. We conclude that the error alleged by Raywalt does not rise to the level of obvious error under Rule 52(b), and we therefore will not consider it on this appeal. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, LEVINE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.