STATE v. CURTISS

Per Curiam.

[¶ 1] Spencer Curtiss appeals the district court's criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition. Curtiss argues the district court erred by admitting a video of Curtiss smoking marijuana, admitting testimony about Curtiss channeling a younger personality while he engaged in sexual acts with the victim and excluding evidence of the victim's sexual history. We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4), concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by making the evidentiary rulings.

[¶ 2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom