|
1:30pm | Tuesday, September 2, 2008 |
|
| 20080047 |
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Douglas Wayne Moos, Defendant and Appellant
|
| Appeal from: |
Southeast Judicial District,
Stutsman County,
Judge Mikal Simonson |
|
Nature of Action: |
Misc. Statutory Offense (Felony) |
| Counsel: |
|
| Issues: | Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the Fugitive Dismissal Rule should bar this action.
II. Whether the Trial Court Erred in Determining the Information Was Not Multiplicitous.
III. Whether the Prosecutor Engaged in Prosecutorial Misconduct Resulting in a Denial of a Fair Trial.
IV. Whether the Trial Court Abused its Discretion in Determining Restitution.
[ 5] V. Whether the Trial Court Erred in Denying the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial.Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Bars Moos' Appeal.
II. Whether Moos's Failure to Raise the Allegation that Prosecutorial Questioning Amounted to an Improper Comment on His Right to Silence in His Motion for New Trial Bars Him from Raising it on Appeal.
III. Whether the Trial Court Properly Denied Moos' Motion for New Trial
A. Whether it Was Properly Denied Under the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine.
B. Whether it Was Properly Denied on the Grounds that Moos Failed to Show the Newly Discovered Evidence was Material Evidence or Weighty Evidence that Would Have Lead to an Acquittal.
IV. Whether the Trial Court Properly Denied Moos' Motion to Elect Between Offenses or Dismiss Due to Multiplicity.
V. Whether the Prosecutor Improperly Commented on the Defendant's Right to Remain Silent.
A. Whether Moos' Failure to Request a Cautionary Instruction Bars Him from Raising this Claim on Appeal.
B. Did Moos Invite the Prosecutors Questions By the Way He Alleged Insufficiencies in the Investigation.
C. If the Prosecutor Erroneously Commented on Moos' Silence, was it Harmless Error.
VI. Whether the Trial Court Properly Imposed Restitution.
|
| Briefs: |
|
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/02/2008 |