City of Grand Forks v. Ramstad

20020120

City of Grand Forks, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Darin Lee Ramstad, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from:

District Court, Northeast Central Judicial District, Grand Forks County
Judge Joel D. Medd

Nature of Action:

Counsel:

Appellant:		Larivee & Light
Appellee:		Gary E. Euren , City Prosecutor

Term:

10/2002 Argument: 10/31/2002 02:45pm

ND cite:

2003 ND 41

NW cite:

658 N.W.2d 731

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

Issues:

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

Docket entries:

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)
11	08/12/2002	APPELLANT BRIEF
12	08/12/2002	APPELLANT APPENDIX
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
16	09/13/2002	APPELLEE BRIEF
17	09/16/2002	DISK - AEB
18	09/20/2002	REPLY BRIEF
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
24	03/26/2003	DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
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
30	04/17/2003	MANDATE
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

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 05/17/2013