The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Angel Alberto Torres-Sosa for kidnapping, attempted gross sexual imposition, and aggravated assault after he forfeited his Miranda rights challenge by failing to renew his objection during trial.
Torres-Sosa appealed from the District Court of Grand Forks County's order denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements. He argued the statements should have been excluded because they were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
The case highlights the critical importance of procedural requirements in criminal appeals. While Torres-Sosa filed a pretrial motion to suppress his pre-arrest statements, the district court denied the motion. The fatal procedural error occurred when Torres-Sosa failed to renew his objection when the evidence was actually offered during trial.
Under North Dakota law, defendants must preserve their objections by raising them both pretrial and at trial. The state Supreme Court explained that Torres-Sosa forfeited any claim of error by failing to renew his objection when the evidence was presented to the jury.
The court relied on established precedent in reaching this decision. In *State v. Guthmiller* (2025), the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that forfeiture occurs when a party fails to timely assert a right. The court also cited *State v. Steen* (2015), which established that to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must object to the offer of evidence at trial despite an unsuccessful pretrial motion.
This procedural requirement serves important judicial efficiency purposes. Courts require defendants to maintain their objections throughout proceedings to ensure that trial courts have adequate opportunity to address constitutional concerns as they arise. The rule also prevents defendants from strategically remaining silent during trial and then raising objections only if convicted.
The forfeiture doctrine distinguishes between procedural defaults and fundamental errors. While Torres-Sosa lost the ability to challenge the admission of his statements on appeal, the underlying constitutional question of whether his Miranda rights were violated was never reached by the appellate court.
Torres-Sosa was represented by Samuel A. Gereszek of Grand Forks, while the state was represented by Assistant State's Attorney Megan J.K. Essig. The case was heard by the Northeast Central Judicial District under the Honorable M. Jason McCarthy.
The charges against Torres-Sosa were serious felonies carrying substantial penalties. Kidnapping, attempted gross sexual imposition, and aggravated assault represent some of the most severe crimes in North Dakota's criminal code. The conviction followed a jury trial where Torres-Sosa's statements presumably played a significant role in the prosecution's case.
The Miranda doctrine, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Miranda v. Arizona* (1966), requires law enforcement to inform suspects in custody of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney before interrogation. Violations of Miranda can result in the exclusion of statements from trial, but only if properly preserved through the trial process.
The North Dakota Supreme Court's per curiam opinion was brief and focused solely on the procedural forfeiture issue. Per curiam opinions are issued by the court as a whole rather than authored by a single justice, typically used for cases that apply established legal principles without breaking new ground.
This case serves as a reminder to criminal defense attorneys about the importance of maintaining objections throughout trial proceedings. Even when pretrial motions are denied, counsel must renew objections when evidence is actually offered to preserve appellate rights.
The forfeiture rule applies broadly across criminal procedure. Defendants who fail to maintain their objections risk losing the ability to challenge evidence on appeal, regardless of the underlying merits of their constitutional claims.
For prosecutors, the case demonstrates how procedural rules can uphold convictions even when underlying constitutional questions remain unresolved. The state successfully defended the conviction without having to address the substantive Miranda issue on appeal.
The affirmance means Torres-Sosa's convictions stand and he will serve whatever sentence was imposed by the district court. The case number 20250228 indicates this was among the early criminal appeals heard by the North Dakota Supreme Court in 2025.
While the specific facts underlying Torres-Sosa's arrest and the content of his allegedly improper statements were not detailed in the appellate opinion, the procedural holding will guide future criminal cases in North Dakota courts. Defense attorneys must ensure they preserve their constitutional objections at every stage of proceedings to maintain appellate review rights.