State v. Blunt
v.
Charles Blunt, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
| Appellant: | Michael Ray Hoffman | |
| Appellee: | Cynthia Mae Feland , Asst. State's Attorney | |
| Appellee: | Lloyd Clayton Suhr , Asst. State's Attorney |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Did the trial court's granting of the Rule 29 motion on the grant money prohibit Blunt's further prosecution on Count I?
2: Did the trial court err in allowing the State to constructively amend Count I to include the allegations of Spencer sick leave and relocation expenses without a new preliminary hearing?
3: Is the culpable mental state for "disposes of, uses, or transfers any interest in property" in NDCC 12.1-23-07(1) "knowingly" or "willfully"?
4: Can the State aggregate amounts under NDCC 12.1-23-07 as it did in Count I to reach a class B felony level?
5: Is "committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct" contained in NDCC 12.1-23-05(6) an essential element of Misapplication of entrusted property under NDCC 12.1-23-07, which must be alleged in Count I, charged to the jury, and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt?
6: Was the State's allegation that Blunt "failed to collect relocation (moving) expenses from Dave Spencer" not proven as a matter of law?
7: Is there insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the finding of guilt on Count I in that all of the expenditures in This case were within Blunt's discretion, reasonable and necessary and a benefit to WSI?
8: Was Blunt convicted on a burden of proof below that which is constitutionally required for beyond a reasonable doubt?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Exclusion of evidence in not commensurate with an acquittal of the charge.
II. A preliminary hearing is a safety device to prevent detention without probable cause, not a discovery device.
III.The information properly charged Blunt with Misapplication of Entrusted Property
IV.The State's ability to aggregate the value of property for the purpose of determining the grade of offense applies to all of the provisions of N.D.C.C., Section 12.1-23.
V. Aggregation alone does not enhance "the seriousness of the offense" alleged.
VI.The State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to decide that Blunt failed to collect relocation (moving) expenses.
VII. The evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to support the finding of guilt on count I.
VIII.Blunt was not convicted on a burden of proof below that which is constitutionally required for beyond a reasonable doubt.
Add Docket 20090110 RSS