jury a cautionary instruction in North Dakota

1990Andrews v. O’Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986); Klein v. Harper, 186 N.W.2d 426, 435 (N.D.1971).

1990Andrews v. O'Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986); Klein v. Harper, 186 N.W.2d 426, 435 (N.D.1971).

2015When the defendant fails to request a cautionary instruction, this Court’s review is limited to determining if the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.” Montano, 2012 ND 59, ¶ 8 , 813 N.W.2d 612 . [¶ 10] “This Court exercises our authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quotation marks omitted).

2015“Even when a defendant’s objection to a prosecutor’s improper argument is sustained by the trial court, the failure to request a cautionary instruction waives the objection to the allegedly prejudicial statement.” State v. Montano, 2012 ND 59, ¶ 8 , 813 N.W.2d 612 ; see also State v. Welch, 426 N.W.2d 550, 553 (N.D.1988) (“[I]n order to properly preserve the question of prejudice for appellate review, counsel must ask the trial court to give the jury a cautionary instruction.”).

2015When the defendant fails to request a cautionary instruction, this Court’s review is limited to determining if the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.” Montano, 2012 ND 59, ¶ 8 , 813 N.W.2d 612 . [¶ 10] “This Court exercises our authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quotation marks omitted).

2015“Even when a defendant’s objection to a prosecutor’s improper argument is sustained by the trial court, the failure to request a cautionary instruction waives the objection to the allegedly prejudicial statement.” State v. Montano, 2012 ND 59, ¶ 8 , 813 N.W.2d 612 ; see also State v. Welch, 426 N.W.2d 550, 553 (N.D.1988) (“[I]n order to properly preserve the question of prejudice for appellate review, counsel must ask the trial court to give the jury a cautionary instruction.”).

2015When the defendant fails to request a cautionary instruction, this Court’s review is limited to determining if the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.” Montano, 2012 ND 59, ¶ 8 , 813 N.W.2d 612 . [¶ 10] “This Court exercises our authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quotation marks omitted).

2015When the defendant fails to request a cautionary instruction, this Court’s review is limited to determining if the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.” Montano, 2012 ND 59, ¶ 8 , 813 N.W.2d 612 . [¶ 10] “This Court exercises our authority to notice obvious error cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances in which the defendant has suffered serious injustice.” State v. Duncan, 2011 ND 85, ¶ 18 , 796 N.W.2d 672 (quotation marks omitted).

1950A similar contention was made in State v. Maresch, 75 ND 229 , 27 NW2d 1 , and we held that: “Where the testimony of certain police officers discloses no prejudice or bias and they were all officers holding permanent positions under the State, County or City government and none of them were special investigators or private detectives temporarily employed to solve the particular crime for which the defendant was being tried, it was not error to refuse to give the jury a cautionary instruction to the effect that greater care should' be used in weighing the testimony of police officers because of