Court Opinion

ID: 9733660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:13:19.601848+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:43.305044
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring in result.
I agree that the trial court resolved a factual element of the charged crime in favor of Kraft and that the result of that resolution is not appealable. I do not necessarily agree that the trial court was correct in its ruling1 but that is an issue which we need not consider for, as the majority notes, “[ajcquittal by the trial court for lack of evidence also bars retrial, even when that acquittal is based on erroneous evidentiary rulings.” I therefore concur in the result.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., concurs.

. State’s exhibit one was admitted without objection as to its relevancy or materiality. Unless the admission of such evidence were to rise to .the level of obvious error, see Rule 52(b), NDRCrimP, State v. Raywalt, 436 N.W.2d 234 (N.D.1989), it was evidence the jury was entitled to consider. Paine v. Willson, 146 F. 488 (C.C.A. N.D.1906) [inadmissible evidence, introduced without objection, may establish the fact in controversy as conclusively as the best evidence regularly produced]; Hannahs v. Noah, 83 S.D. 296, 158 N.W.2d 678 (1968) [incompetent evidence if admitted without objection has probative value and may be considered with the same force and effect as proper evidence]. We have consistently iterated the principle that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilty in a criminal action. E.g. State v. Olson, 290 N.W.2d 664 (N.D.1980) [mostly circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction of murder]; State v. Allen, 237 N.W.2d 154 (N.D.1975) [circumstantial evidence sufficient for jury to draw inference defendant guilty of burglary].