State v. Buchholz

20030275 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Robert L. Buchholz, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, McIntosh County
Judge Donald L. Jorgensen
Nature of Action: Sexual Offense
Counsel:
Appellant: Donavin L. Grenz
Appellee: Terry W. Elhard , State's Attorney
Amicus curiae: Robert P. Bennett , Att. General Office
Term: 02/2004   Argument: 02/02/2004  1:30pm
ND cite: 2004 ND 77
NW cite: 678 N.W.2d 144

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error and deny Robert L. Buchholz due process of law, and his right to a fair trial, by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of other alleged wrongful acts, by permitting prosecution witnesses to testify of other acts alleged to be wrongful, and by not giving a limiting instruction to the jury regarding their consideration of the testimony regarding other alleged wrongful acts?
2. Did the trial court commit reversible error and deny Robert L. Buchholz, due process of law, and his right to a fair trial by refusing to give a jury instruction as to the applicable statute of limitations, and by applying NDCC  29-04-03.1 as the applicable statute of limitations in this case?
3. Was the application of NDCC  29-04-03.1 as the applicable statute of limitations in this case unconstitutional or in violation of due process of law, or in the alternative is NDCC  29-04-03.1 unconstitutional in that it deprives a defendant of his right to a speedy and fair trial or that it is in violation of the ex post facto law contained in Article I, 10 of the United States Constitution?
4. Did the trial court violate due process of law and deny Robert L. Buchholz a fair trial by refusing and neglecting to impose any sanctions against the prosecution for violation of its sequestration order?
5. Did the trial court commit reversible error and deny Robert L. Buchholz due process of law by refusing to grant Defendant's motions for a directed verdict of acquittal, to stay judgment, for a new trial, for arrest of judgment, and to grant post conviction relief?
6. Did the trial court deny Robert L. Buchholz, due process of law by not supplying him with copies of the pre-sentence investigation report, and the Adult Sexual Offender Evaluation prior to sentencing, and by proceeding with imposing sentence when the Adult Sexual Offender Evaluation contained obvious errors, thereby depriving Robert L. Buchholz from requesting a hearing thereon and from introducing evidence and testimony refuting the same?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. The trial court did not commit reversible error and did not deny Robert L. Buchholz due process of law, and his right to a fair trial, by denying his motion to suppress evidence of other alleged wrongful acts and by permitting prosecution witnesses to testify of other acts alleged to be wrongful.
2. The trial court did not commit reversible error, did not deny Buchholz due process of law, and did not deny him of his right to a fair trial by refusing to give a jury instruction as to the applicable statute of limitations, and by applying N.D.C.C.  29-04-03.1 as the applicable statute of limitations in this case.
3. N.D. Cent. Code  29-04-03.1, as amended in 1993, as the applicable statute of limitations in this case is constitutional.
4. The trial court did not deny Buchholz a fair trial by refusing and neglecting to impose any sanctions against the prosecution for violation of its sequestration order.
5. The trial court did not commit reversible error and did not deny Buchholz due process of law by refusing to grant his motions for a directed verdict of acquittal, to stay the judgment, to grant a new trial, to arrest the judgment, and to grant post conviction relief.
6. The trial court did not deny Buchholz of his due process rights by not supplying him with copies of the risk assessment and the Adult Sexual Offender Evaluation prior to sentencing, and by proceeding with imposing sentence when Adult Sexual Offender evaluation contained an error.

Add Docket 20030275 RSS Add Docket 20030275 RSS

Docket entries:
109/22/2003 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/19/2003
209/25/2003 TRANSCRIPT DATED July 1-2, 2003
309/25/2003 DISK - TRA (7/01-02/03)
410/17/2003 Corrected Notice of Appeal (filed in trial court on 10-15-03)
510/17/2003 RECORD ON APPEAL & separates (#21,26,43,59,61,62,63,&89)(Not rec'd: #65 & 72--Shorthand notes)
610/17/2003 TRANSCRIPT DATED September 8, 2003
710/20/2003 DISK - TRA (9/8/03)
811/24/2003 APPELLANT BRIEF
911/24/2003 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1011/24/2003 Appellant's Motion for Post Conviction Relief
1111/25/2003 NO ACTION TAKEN (Mot. referred to trial court for disposition)
1212/02/2003 Table of Contents for ATB and Notice of Appeal & Corrected Notice of Appeal for ATA
1312/02/2003 Affidavit of Service by Mail of ATB on Atty. Gen.'s Office
1412/02/2003 DISK - atb
1512/15/2003 MOTION TO PERMIT FILING OF BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
1612/15/2003 ACTION BY CLERK (Motion to file Amicus Brief). Granted
1712/15/2003 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF (Robert P. Bennett Assist. Atty. Gen.)
1812/15/2003 DISK - ACB
1912/15/2003 APPELLEE BRIEF
2012/15/2003 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2112/15/2003 DISK - AEB (e-mailed)
2212/31/2003 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 12-30-03 (Entry Nos. 97 & 98)
2301/02/2004 Supplemental Clerk Certificate dated 12-31-03 (Entry Nos. 99 & 100)
2401/09/2004 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated 1-8-04 (Entry No. 101)
2502/02/2004 APPEARANCES: Donavin L. Grenz; Terry W. Elhard
2602/02/2004 ARGUED: Grenz; Elhard (Vol. Y; Page 200)
2702/02/2004 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2804/13/2004 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
2904/13/2004 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Neumann, William A.
3004/14/2004 Judgment Mailed to Parties
3104/28/2004 Mot. Ext/Time Petition for Rehearing (Sua Sponte)
3204/28/2004 ACTION BY CLERK (Sua Sponte - MPR). Granted: 04/28/2004
3304/28/2004 PETITION FOR REHEARING
3404/28/2004 DISK - PER
3505/03/2004 Letter dated 4/30/04 from Donavin Grenz (Filing of PER)
3605/05/2004 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied
3705/18/2004 MANDATE
3805/19/2004 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE
3911/26/2010 EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/22/2014