RULE 50. CALENDARS
shall must provide for placing criminal actions or
proceedings upon appropriate
calendars. Preference shall Scheduling preference must be given to
criminal actions or
proceedings as far as practicable. A court may make such orders for
continuance of a criminal action or proceeding as may be necessary in the
interest of justice.
Rule 50 was amended, effective March 1, 2006.
Rule 50 is an adaptation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 50. The
rule is a restatement of the inherent
power of the court over its own calendars. The direction that preference shall be given to
criminal proceedings as far as practicable is generally recognized as desirable in the orderly
administration of justice. [See Advisory Committee Note to Rule 50, 18 U.S.C.A.,
Rules of Criminal Procedure.]
Rule 50 differs from its
Federal federal counterpart in
three respects two ways. First, it
makes mandatory (rather than discretionary) upon the court the arrangement of
"[t]he courts" to place criminal actions or proceedings upon
on the appropriate court
calendar. This is necessary because the prosecuting attorneys in this State do not arrange
criminal court calendar as is done in some of the Federal District Courts.
to "district" court is deleted because the application of this Rule is to all courts, as provided
in the scope of these Rules. Finally, the language of the last sentence, which
provides for the
"advancement or continuance of a criminal action or proceeding as may be
necessary in the
interest of justice ", is intended to echo the A.B.A. Standards, which
provide that a
continuance should be granted "only upon a showing of good cause and only
for so long as
necessary, taking into account not only the request or consent of the prosecution or defense,
but also the public interest in prompt disposition of the case. " [A.B.A. Standards for
Criminal Justice, Speedy Trial, § 1.3 (Approved Draft, 1968).]
The provision that preference
shall be given to criminal actions or
proceedings as far as
practicable states an elementary principle of criminal justice which has gained in effect
through application of the Sixth Amendment's "speedy trial" provision to the States.
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 87 S. Ct. 988, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1967). For a
discussion of the connection between Rule 50 and the right to speedy trial, see King v.
United States, 265 F.2d 567 (D.C. Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 998, 79 S. Ct. 1124, 3
L. Ed. 2d 986 (1959).]
Rule 50 was amended, effective March 1, 2006, in response to the December 1, 2002, revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
SOURCES: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of April 28-29, 2005, page 10; February 20-23, 1973, page 11; November 18-20, 1971, pages 23-24; 18 U.S.C.A., Fed.R.Crim.P. 50; Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, §§ 831-832 (1969); 8A Moore's Federal Practice and Procedure, Chapter 50 (Cipes, 2d Ed. 1972); Barron, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, § 2251 (1951); A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Speedy Trial, §§ 1.1-1.2 (Approved Draft, 1968).
CONSIDERED: N.D.C.C. § 27-08-22, ch. 29-19.
CROSS REFERENCE: N.D.R.Civ.P. 40 (Assignment of Cases for Trial).