State v. Banyee , 2020 ND 157 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                 Filed 7/22/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court
    IN THE SUPREME COURT
    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
    
    2020 ND 157
    State of North Dakota,                                  Plaintiff and Appellee
    v.
    Nyynkpao Banyee,                                     Defendant and Appellant
    No. 20180251
    Nyynkpao Banyee,                                     Petitioner and Appellant
    v.
    State of North Dakota,                               Respondent and Appellee
    No. 20190281
    Appeals from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
    the Honorable John C. Irby, Judge.
    AFFIRMED.
    Per Curiam.
    Reid A. Brady, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for appellee.
    Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, N.D., for appellant.
    State v. Banyee and Banyee v. State
    Nos. 20180251 and 20190281
    Per Curiam.
    [¶1] In these consolidated cases, Nyynkpao Banyee appeals from a criminal
    judgment finding him guilty of robbery and a judgment denying Banyee’s
    application for postconviction relief arising from the criminal judgment. On
    direct appeal, Banyee argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support
    the conviction and also that the district court erred in admitting two
    photographs of the iPad that was taken during the robbery. Banyee’s trial
    attorney objected when the photographs were offered: “[I]t’s not the best
    evidence. It’s not the iPad but it is photographs; it has been identified. We
    would object.”
    [¶2] Rule 1002, N.D.R.Ev., often referred to as the best evidence rule,
    requires an original writing, recording, or photograph to prove its content. It
    does not preclude the court from receiving as evidence a photo of an item
    alleged to have been stolen. We summarily affirm the criminal judgment under
    N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4), concluding the evidence was sufficient to
    support the criminal judgment and the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in admitting the photographs of the iPad. We also summarily affirm
    the judgment denying Banyee’s application for postconviction relief under
    N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court’s finding that Banyee’s
    trial counsel provided effective representation is not clearly erroneous.
    [¶3]   Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
    Jerod E. Tufte
    Lisa Fair McEvers
    Gerald W. VandeWalle
    Daniel J. Crothers
    1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20180251

Citation Numbers: 2020 ND 157

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/22/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/23/2020