State v. Vondal
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Johnathan Scott Vondal, Defendant and Appellant
Northeast Central Judicial District,
Grand Forks County
Judge Sonja Clapp
|Nature of Action:||Assault|
|Term:||06/2011  Argument: 06/01/2011|
|ND cite:||2011 ND 186|
803 N.W.2d 578
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Whether obvious error affecting Vondal's constitutional rights was committed by allowing Vondal to be prosecuted as an adult for Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child regarding sexual contacts or acts that were allegedly committed while Vondal was less than fourteen years of age?
2. Whether various instances of prosecutorial misconduct violated Vondal's due process rights, including his right to a fair trial and his right to sufficient notice of the elements of a crime for which he's been charged?
3. Whether law enforcement violated Vondal's rights by not following 14-07.1-10(2), N.D.C.C. in establishing probable cause before arresting Vondal for Aggravated Assault?
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion and violated Vondal's sixth amendment rights by not allowing testimony about B.'s out-of-court statements about B.'s state of mind with regard to the timing of her allegations of sexual abuse and her unwillingness to admit showing any aggression in relation to the December 22, 2009 conflict?
5. Whether the District Court erred by denying Vondal's Rule 29 motions for acquittal regarding the state not providing sufficient evidence to support guilty verdicts on the charges of Aggravated Assault and Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether it was obvious error to include in the charges acts the Defendant committed prior to the age of fourteen (14) but not discovered until after the age of twenty (20) in District Court pursuant to N.D.C.C. 27-20-34(8)?
II. Whether the Defendant's Due Process rights were violated during trial?
III. Whether there was probable cause to arrest the Defendant?
IV. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in prohibiting irrelevant and prejudicial character evidence about the juvenile victim?
V. Whether the District Court erred in denying the Defendant's Rule 29(a) Motion for Judgment of Acquittal?
|Add Docket 20100389 RSS|
|1||12/10/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/07/2010|
|2||12/10/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 12/07/2010|
|3||12/10/2010 This case is consolidated w/20100390. Make all docket entries, except ROA, DIS, & MAN|
|4||12/10/2010 codes, in this case.|
|5||12/13/2010 Acknowledgment of OTR & RETENTION OF RECORD ON APPEAL: 01/26/2011|
|6||01/26/2011 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 3/19/10, 5/17/10, 8/23/10, 8/31/10, 9/1/10, 9/2/10, 9/3/10, 11/16/10 & C.O.S.|
|7||01/26/2011 DISK-TRA (3/19/10, 5/17/10, 8/23/10, 8/31/10, 9/1/10, 9/3/10, 11/16/10) E-MAILED|
|8||01/28/2011 DISK-TRA (9/2/10) E-MAILED|
|9||02/23/2011 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|10||02/23/2011 E-FILED MOTION (Mot/Ext/ATB)|
|11||02/23/2011 ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 04/06/2011|
|12||02/28/2011 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL (ENTRY NOS. 1-78) #58 CASSETTE TAPE & #60 CD WERE PHYSICALLY REC'D.|
|13||03/31/2011 Received $25.00 e-filing surcharge for ATB (Receipt #20242).|
|14||04/05/2011 APPELLANT BRIEF (e-filed)|
|15||04/05/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (ATB)|
|16||04/05/2011 APPELLANT APPENDIX (FAXED)|
|17||04/05/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX (ATA) FAXED|
|18||04/07/2011 Received corrections to ATB.|
|19||04/08/2011 Received 7 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating.|
|20||04/08/2011 Received 6 copies of ATA from Central Duplicating.|
|21||05/05/2011 APPELLEE BRIEF|
|22||05/05/2011 E-FILED BRIEF - AEB|
|23||05/05/2011 APPELLEE APPENDIX|
|24||05/05/2011 E-FILED APPENDIX - AEB|
|25||05/09/2011 Received $25.00 AEB surcharge. (receipt no. 20301)|
|26||05/11/2011 Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating.|
|27||05/11/2011 Received 6 copies of AEA from Central Duplicating.|
|28||05/19/2011 REPLY BRIEF (e-filed)|
|29||05/19/2011 E-FILED BRIEF (RYB)|
|30||05/20/2011 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|31||05/20/2011 Received 7 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating.|
|32||06/01/2011 APPEARANCES: Robin L. Thompson Gordon; Meredith H. Larson; M. Jason McCarthy|
|33||06/01/2011 ARGUED: Robin L. Thompson Gordon; Meredith H. Larson|
|34||06/01/2011 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|35||09/15/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|36||09/15/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|37||09/15/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties|
|39||10/13/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|