Court Opinion

ID: 9916698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 15:07:31.661908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:49.329093
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                      CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                           JANUARY 10, 2024
                                                                       STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                  2024 ND 6

State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
      v.
Ibrahim Salou,                                      Defendant and Appellant

                                No. 20230196

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Tristan J. Van de Streek, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Tufte, Justice.

Jason H. Van Horn, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and
appellee.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.
                                State v. Salou
                                No. 20230196

Tufte, Justice.

[¶1] Ibrahim Salou appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury
trial. He argues the district court erred by allowing improper Rule 404(b),
N.D.R.Ev., evidence. He also argues insufficient evidence supports his
conviction. We affirm the judgment.

                                       I

[¶2] Salou was charged with possession with intent to manufacture or deliver
marijuana while in possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of
amphetamine. The State filed a notice of intent to present evidence under
N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) describing digital evidence obtained from Salou’s phone
relating to his possession of controlled substances almost two months before
the charged offense. When photographs and text messages from the phone
were offered at trial, Salou’s counsel objected on grounds of relevance, arguing
the evidence from the photographs was not connected to the charge because
the almost two-month lapse in time from the messages to the charged offense
was too remote. The court found the messages were admissible as relevant
evidence and noted it did not consider the messages to be 404(b) evidence. The
district court overruled the objection.

[¶3] The jury convicted Salou of possession with intent to manufacture or
deliver a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm, and possession
of a controlled substance. Salou appeals.

                                      II

[¶4] Salou argues the district court erred by admitting improper Rule 404(b)
evidence. Our appellate rules require the appellant’s brief to contain a concise
statement of the applicable standard of review and a “citation to the record
showing that the issue was preserved for review[] or a statement of grounds
for seeking review of an issue not preserved.” N.D.R.App.P. 28(b)(7)(B). In the
statement of facts, the appellant’s brief mentions an objection overruled by the

                                       1
court, but without direct citation and in the context of describing a discussion
on the record before opening statements where no evidence was offered and no
objection was made.

[¶5] “One of the touchstones for an effective appeal on any proper issue is that
the matter was appropriately raised in the trial court so it could intelligently
rule on it.” State v. Thomas, 2019 ND 194, ¶ 9, 931 N.W.2d 192 (quoting Lemer
v. Campbell, 1999 ND 223, ¶ 16, 602 N.W.2d 686). If a party wishes to preserve
a claim of error as it relates to the admissibility of evidence, it must, on the
record, object or move to strike the evidence and state a specific ground for
exclusion. N.D.R.Ev. 103(a)(1)(A)-(B).

[¶6] At trial, Salou objected to the relevance of the photographs and text
messages, arguing they occurred outside the relevant time frame and the State
had shown no connection to the charges. Salou also argued one exhibit was
“more prejudicial than it is probative.” The district court considered the
evidence and found Rule 404(b) did not apply. Next, the court considered
whether the evidence was relevant and concluded that the offered exhibits
showed Salou was distributing marijuana, and further found the time lapse
was not a strong enough reason to exclude the evidence, because Salou could
have held onto the marijuana for a couple of months, making the evidence
relevant. Further, the court found the exhibits were not more prejudicial than
probative without additional explanation how the message implicated Salou
and marijuana.

[¶7] The standard of review for preserved evidentiary rulings is well
established:

      This Court reviews a district court’s evidentiary ruling under an
      abuse of discretion standard. A district court has broad discretion
      on evidentiary matters, and we will not overturn its admission or
      exclusion of evidence on appeal unless that discretion has been
      abused. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts
      arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or when its decision is
      not the product of a rational mental process or if it misinterprets
      or misapplies the law.

                                       2
State v. Yousif, 2022 ND 234, ¶ 5, 982 N.W.2d 870 (internal citations omitted).

[¶8] Here, Salou’s objection preserved claims of error to relevance and unfair
prejudice. Whether the evidence was improper under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) was not
preserved by an objection at trial, which forfeited that claim of error. See State
v. Smith, 2019 ND 239, ¶ 14, 934 N.W.2d 1. We review the claims regarding
relevance and unfair prejudice for abuse of discretion, but the Rule 404(b)
claim is reviewable only for obvious error. Id.

[¶9] “A district court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence
at trial.” State v. Thomas, 2022 ND 126, ¶ 10, 975 N.W.2d 562. “Evidence is
relevant if [] it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence.” N.D.R.Ev. 401 (emphasis added). Establishing
relevance is not a substantial burden. See State v. Haugen, 448 N.W.2d 191,
195 (N.D. 1989); State v. Naudain, 368 Or. 140, 149, 487 P.3d 32 (2021)
(describing relevance under Rule 401 as a “very low threshold”); Lee v. State,
2003 WY 8, ¶ 9, 61 P.3d 1225 (emphasizing broad language of Rule 401 provides
a “low threshold”). The exhibits make it more probable Salou was selling
marijuana, and the exhibits are of consequence because further testimony
explained the exhibits show Salou was supposed to receive a pound of
marijuana. The district court did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or
unreasonably, or misinterpret the law by concluding the photographs and text
messages were relevant.

[¶10] Salou argues the district court obviously erred by failing to conduct the
three-step analysis our cases require for determining the admissibility of
evidence over a Rule 404(b) objection. Salou made no Rule 404(b) objection
when the evidence was offered. The court reasoned that the photograph found
on Salou’s phone taken “a month or two months” earlier showing several bags
of marijuana was direct evidence of the charged crime because “a person could
hold onto marijuana for a couple months.” Salou objected only on grounds of
relevance and unfair prejudice, and not under Rule 404(b). He did not request
a limiting instruction. His relevance argument suggests the photographs and
text messages must be viewed only as “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or
act,” N.D.R.Ev. 404(b)(1), but after the court rejected that argument and

                                        3
determined it was directly relevant to the charged act, it was incumbent on
him to object on the basis of Rule 404(b) or request a limiting instruction. He
did not. We conclude the district court did not obviously err in these
circumstances.

                                      III

[¶11] Salou also argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

[¶12] This Court’s standard for reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence
challenge is well established:

      When the sufficiency of evidence to support a criminal conviction
      is challenged, this Court merely reviews the record to determine if
      there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference
      reasonably tending to prove guilt and fairly warranting a
      conviction. The defendant bears the burden of showing the
      evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in
      the light most favorable to the verdict. When considering
      insufficiency of the evidence, we will not reweigh conflicting
      evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. . . . A jury may find
      a defendant guilty even though evidence exists which, if believed,
      could lead to a verdict of not guilty.

State v. Noble, 2023 ND 119, ¶ 4, 992 N.W.2d 518 (quoting State v. Dahl, 2022
ND 212, ¶ 5, 982 N.W.2d 580).

[¶13] Salou does not contest that he was in possession of a firearm when he
was arrested. He argues he did not have possession of the backpack and was
not aware of its contents. Salou was a passenger in a car during a traffic stop.
The evidence indicated the backpack was located at his feet, where he could
reach and control it. Neither he nor the driver claimed possession of the
backpack at the traffic stop. The packaging of the marijuana found in the
backpack was similar in appearance to the marijuana shown in the photograph
found on Salou’s phone. We conclude there was sufficient evidence for a jury to
draw an inference reasonably tending to prove Salou was in possession of the
backpack.

                                       4
                                    IV

[¶14] The criminal judgment is affirmed.

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

                                     5