City of Grand Forks v. Ramstad
City of Grand Forks, Plaintiff and Appellee
Darin Lee Ramstad, Defendant and Appellant
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Joel D. Medd
|Nature of Action:||Dui/Dus|
|Term:||10/2002  Argument: 10/31/2002 2:45pm|
|ND cite:||2003 ND 41|
658 N.W.2d 731
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Whether the Appellee ("City") failed to provide requested discovery materials in violation of the Defendant-Appellant's ("Ramstad") due process rights of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, 12 of the North Dakota Constitution.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant Ramstad any relief pursuant to N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), where Ramstad moved to suppress and subsequently moved for a continuance in response to the City's failure to disclose certain documents, the nondisclosure of which affected Ramstad's substantial rights.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Whether the Appellee (the City) failed to provide requested discovery materials in violation of the Appellant's (Ramstad) due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, 12 of the North Dakota Constitution.
B. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant Ramstad any relief pursuant to N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), where Ramstad moved to suppress and subsequently moved for a continuance in response to the City's failure to disclose certain documents, the nondisclosure of which affected Ramstad's substantial rights.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The trial court did not commit prejudicial and reversible error when it did not allow an additional jury instruction that Mr. Clark did honestly believe that he had a valid claim to the property.
II. The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on the elements of Theft of Property Delivered by Mistake.
III. There is sufficient evidence of Mr. Clark's knowledge and intent in the record to support a conviction for the crime of Theft of Property.
IV. The trial court's imposition of a sentence of eight (8) years in prison based on Mr. Clark being a habitual offender was not erroneous or excessive.
V. The trial court did not commit a Brady violation when it admitted marked copes of sales invoices generated by Acme.
|Add Docket 20020120 RSS|
|1||05/20/2002||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/15/2002|
|2||05/20/2002||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 05/15/2002|
|3||05/23/2002||Transcript dated May 14, 2002 (S, Michelle Bredemeier)|
|4||05/24/2002||DISK of TRA dated 5-14-02|
|5||05/24/2002||RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL (Diane Manthei): 07/04/2002|
|6||05/28/2002||Certificate of Service of Copies of Transcript (Michelle Bredemeier)|
|7||07/03/2002||TRANSCRIPT DATED May 15, 2002|
|8||07/05/2002||DISK - TRA (5-15-02)|
|9||07/05/2002||RECORD ON APPEAL (not rec'd: #36 -- Report of Addiction Evaluation)|
|10||07/08/2002||SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S CERT. DATED 7-05-02 (Entry Nos. 36 & 39)|
|13||08/15/2002||DISK - ATB|
|14||09/12/2002||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (Faxed letter)|
|15||09/12/2002||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 09/14/2002|
|17||09/16/2002||DISK - AEB|
|19||09/23/2002||DISK - RYB|
|20||09/26/2002||Ltr. dtd. 9-25-02 from Steven M. Light regarding cites to incorrect page in Reply Brief|
|21||10/31/2002||APPEARANCES: Steven M. Light (Andrea Hall & Jesse Lange, 2d year law students); Gary E. Euren|
|22||10/31/2002||ARGUED: Light; Euren (Vol. Y; Page 50)|
|23||10/31/2002||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|25||03/26/2003||SPLIT OPINION: VandeWalle, Gerald W.|
|26||03/26/2003||(CONCUR Specially): Maring, Mary Muehlen: CONCUR|
|27||03/26/2003||(Join CONCUR Specially): Sandstrom, Dale V.: JN/CON|
|28||03/26/2003||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|29||03/27/2003||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|31||07/28/2008||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|
|32||04/23/2003||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|33||07/28/2008||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|