State v. Sevigny
v.
Alan Daniel Sevigny, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Laurie A. Fontaine
| Appellant: | Reichert Armstrong Law Office | |
| Appellee: | Barbara L. Whelan , Spec. Asst. State's Atty. |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Did the trial court err by excluding defendant's alibi evidence because the defendant did not give notice of an alibi defense before trial when the dates of the alleged offense only came after the trial had begun and when the state thereby amended its complaint to include the new dates?
A. The trial court erred when it did not allow alibi evidence as an exception to Rule 12.1 because Sevigny had good cause for not giving prior notice of an alibi defense.
B. The trial court erred and it violated Sevigny's Due Process rights when it did not allow Sevigny to testify at trial in regards to his own alibi defense
2. Did the trial court err by allowing hearsay testimony under North Dakota Rules of Evidence, Rule 803 (24), when there was insufficient indicia of reliability as far as time, content, and circumstances of the statement and when it did not make sufficient findings of fact in regards to the time, content, and circumstances of the statement that provide sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness?
3. Did the trial court err when it allowed the testimony of hearsay witnesses under North Dakota Rules of Evidence Rule 803(24), before the testimony of the actual children witnesses during the trial?
4. Did the trial court err in holding the defendant's attorney in contempt in the presence of the jury when he gave his opinion to the jury regarding the sufficiency of the evidence during closing argument?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
The State of North Dakota takes exception to issues number one, two and four, as set forth by Mr. Sevigny. The issues are presented contain factual inaccuracies that are not supported by the record. More specifically, the issues should read:
Issue 1: Did the trial court err by excluding defendant's alibi evidence because the defendant did not give notice of an alibi defense before trial, when the dates in question had been disclosed during pre-trial discovery?
Issue 2: Did the trial court err by allowing hearsay testimony pursuant to Rule 803(24) of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence, following a pre-trial hearing on the issue where testimony was presented regarding the time, content and circumstances of the hearsay statements?
Issue 3: The State accepts the issue as presented by Mr. Sevigny.
Issue 4: Did the trial court err in finding the defendant's attorney in contempt of the court when, during his closing argument, the defendant's attorney continually failed to follow the directives of the trial court regarding the scope of argument?
Add Docket 20050315 RSS