[¶1] Guy Clairmont appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Clairmont argues the district court erred in denying his N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion because sufficient evidence did not exist to support the conviction. He also argues the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), because it made no effort to obtain certain exculpatory evidence. [¶2] The district court did not err in denying Clairmonts N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion, and the State did not violate Brady. An analysis under Brady is appropriate only when the State suppresses evidence that has been collected and preserved. State v. Schmidt, 2012 ND 120, ¶ 13, 817 N.W.2d 332. In Schmidt, at ¶ 13, the State did not violate Brady because the State did not collect the evidence sought by the defendant. Here, similar to Schmidt, the State did not collect the evidence sought by Clairmont. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). Per Curiam.
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte