Court Opinion

ID: 9896046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 15:07:59.54069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:58.775780
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                        IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                          OCTOBER 26, 2023
                                                                      STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                 IN THE SUPREME COURT
                 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                               2023 ND 198

State of North Dakota,                                Plaintiff and Appellee
     v.
Holidahon H. Montenegro,                           Defendant and Appellant

                               No. 20230088

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central
Judicial District, the Honorable M. Jason McCarthy, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ashlei A. Neufeld, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Alexander D. Kiser, under
the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, ND, for
plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Mark C. Sherer, Dickinson, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on
brief.
                            State v. Montenegro
                                No. 20230088

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Holidahon Montenegro appeals from a criminal judgment entered after
a jury found her guilty of harassment. She argues the evidence was insufficient
to sustain the jury verdict and the harassment conviction violates her
constitutional right to free speech under N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. “In reviewing
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, 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.” State v. Rai, 2019 ND 71,
¶ 13, 924 N.W.2d 410 (cleaned up). After reviewing the record, we conclude
sufficient evidence exists for a jury to draw a reasonable inference Montenegro
committed the charged offense.

[¶2] We conclude Montenegro failed to raise a constitutional argument in the
district court, and thus the issue was not preserved for appeal. State v.
Blumler, 458 N.W.2d 300, 303 (N.D. 1990) (“Issues which are not raised before
the trial court, including constitutional issues, will not be considered for the
first time on appeal.”); State v. Curtis, 2008 ND 93, ¶ 11, 748 N.W.2d 709
(rejecting free speech argument where defendant failed to raise issue in district
court). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

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

                                       1