State v. Baumgartner

20010169 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant
v.
Richard C. Baumgartner, Defendant and Appellee

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Emmons County
Judge Benny A. Graff
Nature of Action: Misc. Statutory Off. (Misdemeanor)
Counsel:
Appellee: Donavin L. Grenz
Appellant: Donald R. Becker , State's Attorney
Term: 11/2001   Argument: 11/07/2001  1:30pm
ND cite: 2001 ND 202
NW cite: 637 N.W.2d 14

Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
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 Add Docket 20010169 RSS

Docket entries:
107/05/2001 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 07/02/2001
207/11/2001 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 07/02/2001
307/25/2001 TRANSCRIPT DATED June 4, 2001
407/25/2001 DISK - TRA (6-4-01)
507/27/2001 RECORD ON APPEAL
608/31/2001 APPELLANT BRIEF
708/31/2001 APPELLANT APPENDIX
809/04/2001 DISK - atb
909/10/2001 Copies of page 23 of ATA and Certificate of Service
1010/04/2001 APPELLEE BRIEF
1110/08/2001 DISK of AEB
1210/11/2001 8 cc of corrected TOA & pg. 12 for AEB
1311/05/2001 Request for Radio/TV Coverage (Associated Press) (e-mail from Dale Wetzel) (Approved)
1411/07/2001 APPEARANCES: Donald R. Becker; Donavin L. Grenz
1511/07/2001 ARGUED: Becker; Grenz (Vol. X; Page 175)
1611/07/2001 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1712/20/2001 DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED
1812/20/2001 UNANIMOUS OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
1912/20/2001 Justice Kapsner concurs in result: Kapsner, Carol Ronning: CON/RES
2012/21/2001 Order/Judgment Mailed to Parties
2101/11/2002 MANDATE
2201/15/2002 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
2309/13/2007 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 04/24/2014