State v. Sevigny
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Alan Daniel Sevigny, Defendant and Appellant
Northeast Judicial District,
Judge Laurie A. Fontaine
|Nature of Action:||Sexual Offense|
|Term:||06/2006  Argument: 06/30/2006 9:30am|
|ND cite:||2006 ND 211|
722 N.W.2d 515
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
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|
|1||09/12/2005||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/08/2005|
|2||09/12/2005||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 09/08/2005|
|3||10/06/2005||RECORD ON APPEAL (2 Vol.) and separates including PSI|
|4||10/13/2005||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (letter from Anita Schwartz)|
|5||10/13/2005||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 11/23/2005|
|6||11/22/2005||MOT. EXT/TIME TRANSCRIPT (letter from Anita Schwartz dated 11-20-05)|
|7||11/22/2005||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted: 12/15/2005|
|8||12/13/2005||TRANSCRIPTS DATED December 3, 2004, December 6, 2004, Dec. 8, 2004, March 28, 2005, March 31, 2005,|
|9||12/13/2005||April 8, 2005, April 11, 2005, April 19, 2005, April 25, 2005, April 26, 2005, April 27, 2005,|
|10||12/13/2005||April 28, 2005, April 29, 2005, August 10, 2005, January 14, 2005|
|11||12/15/2005||DISK - Compact Disk w/14 complete transcripts (August 10 is not complete)|
|12||12/21/2005||Affidavit of Mailing (transcript/15 volumes)|
|13||01/17/2006||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF & Affidavit in Support|
|14||01/17/2006||E-FILED MOTION (MAT)|
|15||01/17/2006||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 02/21/2006|
|16||02/09/2006||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF & Affidavit in Support (E-filed)|
|17||02/09/2006||E-FILED MOTION (MAT)|
|18||02/09/2006||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE. Granted: 03/23/2006|
|19||03/23/2006||APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed) (PDF)|
|20||03/23/2006||E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|21||03/23/2006||APPELLANT APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|22||03/23/2006||E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA)|
|23||03/28/2006||Received $25 surcharge (Receipt #16810)|
|24||04/03/2006||Copies of ATB received from Central Duplicating|
|25||04/03/2006||Copies of ATA received from Central Duplicating|
|26||04/18/2006||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (faxed)|
|27||04/18/2006||E-FILED MOTION (MAE)|
|28||04/18/2006||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 05/23/2006|
|30||05/23/2006||E-FILED BRIEF (aeb)|
|31||05/26/2006||Request for Radio/TV Coverage - AP (e-mail dated May 26, 2006, from Dale Wetzel) (approved)|
|32||05/31/2006||Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #16881)|
|33||05/26/2006||Copies of AEB made|
|35||06/06/2006||E-FILED BRIEF (RYB (efiled--pdf))|
|36||06/30/2006||APPEARANCES: Jay D. Knudson; Barbara L. Whelan|
|37||06/30/2006||ARGUED: Knudson; Whelan|
|38||06/30/2006||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|40||10/17/2006||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|41||10/17/2006||Judgment Mailed to Parties|
|43||11/13/2006||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|
|44||01/12/2016||EXPUNGED - Nonpermanent record items destroyed|