State v. Buchholz
v.
Robert L. Buchholz, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Donald L. Jorgensen
| Appellant: | Donavin L. Grenz | |
| Appellee: | Terry W. Elhard , State's Attorney | |
| Amicus curiae: | Robert P. Bennett , Att. General Office |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
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