State v. Baumgartner
v.
Richard C. Baumgartner, Defendant and Appellee
Judge Benny A. Graff
| Appellee: | Donavin L. Grenz | |
| Appellant: | Donald R. Becker , State's Attorney |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Whether undercover officers acting to determine whether hunting guides are allowing the taking of pheasants over the daily limit were co-conspirators with the defendant. State vs. McKinney, 518 N.W.2nd 696, 700 (N.D. 1994) State v. Rambousek, 479 N.W.2nd 832, 836-37 (N.D. 1992) NDCC 12.1-06-04
II Whether undercover officers were accomplices to the crimes charged thus requiring corroboration of their testimony. State v. Ennis, 334, N.W.2nd 827 (N.D. 1983) State v. Pacheco, 506, N.W.2nd 408 (N.D. 1993) NDCC 12.1-03-01
III. Whether the actions of the undercover officers entrapped the defendant as a matter of law.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the trial court properly determine that North Dakota game warden Bruce Burkett and Minnesota game warden William Spence were co-conspirators, who conspired and agreed, to take over their legal limit of pheasants and to implicate the defendant, Richard Baumgartner, in their commission of this unlawful act?
II. Was the trial court's determination that game wardens Spence and Burkett were accomplices to the crime of conspiracy to exceed the daily limit of pheasants proper or erroneous?
III. Was the trial court's determination that section 29-21-14 ndcc requires that the testimony of warden Burkett and warden Spence be corroborated, and that the state could produce no corroborating evidence to establish their allegations that the defendant had conspired to take more than the daily limit of pheasants, proper or clearly erroneous?
IV. Was the trial court's finding of entrapment and dismissal of the charge, proper or erroneous?
Add Docket 20010169 RSS