State v. Stridiron
v.
Antonio Phillip Stridiron, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Douglas L. Mattson
| Appellant: | Robert Wade Martin | |
| Appellee: | Timothy C. Wilhelm , Asst. State's Attorney |
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant Davis's issues I.Whether the trial court erred in joining the Aggravated Assault charge of Appellant Davis with the Murder Charge of Stridiron, and in failing to sever the cases at trial
II.Whether the state unconstitutionally discriminated against a prospective juror, thereby denying Appellant Davis equal protection of the law.
III.Whether there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict finding Defendant guilty of Aggravated Assault in violation of Section 12.1-17-02 N.D.C.C., a Class C Felony.
Stridiron Issues
[1] Whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow the jury impaneled herein to consider the confession of Bradley Antoine Davis to the murder of Joshua David Velasquez, either as a statement by a party-opponent or as a statement against interest, as was related to Alicia Marie Boyce and proffered by counsel for the Appellant?
[2] Whether the trial court erred in determining the preemptory challenge of the only African-American juror in the pool by the State was properly exercised and not racially motivated pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's holding in the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)?
[3] Whether the trial court erred in denying counsel for Appellant's pretrial motion for access to the jury pool for purposes of a public opinion survey and companion motion for a change of venue based upon the pretrial publicity the instant case generated in both the conventional media and in online commentary?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did the court err in refusing to allow hearsay testimony of an alleged conversation between Alicia Boyce and Bradley Davis as a statement against interest pursuant to N.D.R.EV. 804(b)(3)? (Stridiron)
II. Did the court err in denying Stridiron's pre-trial motion for a public opinion survey and a change of venue in this case? (Stridiron)
III. Did the court err in determining that a peremptory challenge of a black juror exercised by the state was not based upon her race? (Stridiron and Davis)
IV. Was there sufficient evidence presented to convict Bradley Davis of the offense of aggravated assault as charged? (Davis)
V. Did the court err in joining the aggravated assault charge of appellant Davis with the murder charge of Stridiron? (Davis)
Add Docket 20080285 RSS