State v. Flah

20120357 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Kawo Flah, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, South Central Judicial District, Burleigh County
Judge Bruce A. Romanick
Nature of Action: Drugs/Contraband
Counsel:
Appellee: Dawn Marie Deitz , Asst. State's Attorney
Appellant: Benjamin C. Pulkrabek
Term: 02/2013   Argument: 02/19/2013  9:30am
ND cite: 2013 ND 22
NW cite: 828 N.W.2d 546

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
Is the following statement by the prosecutor in his closing argument improper: "Now ladies and gentlemen as the Judge stated , when weighing the credibility of witnesses you can take into account there interest in the outcome of the case. What do Officer Hocher and Detective Grensteiner have to gain? Nothing. They're still employed. They have no reason to lie about what was said or what wasn't said at that residence that night. Yes, the Defendant's girlfriend was charged and she pled. Detective Grensteiner also told you its very common for more that one person to use the same pipe and to be charged with using the same pipe. Who has an interest in the outcome of the case"?

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
Whether the State's closing argument gave rise to obvious error?

Add Docket 20120357 RSS Add Docket 20120357 RSS

Docket entries:
109/25/2012 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/24/2012
209/25/2012 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT
310/24/2012 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 10/23/12 (ENTRY NOS.1-2, 4-38, 40-45, 46-48, items not sent 3,39,46)
411/13/2012 TRANSCRIPT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2012, & C.O.S.
511/13/2012 DISK-TRA (9/4/12) E-MAILED
612/11/2012 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
712/11/2012 ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 01/06/2012
812/11/2012 ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED DECEMBER 11, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 49-51)
912/21/2012 APPELLANT BRIEF
1012/21/2012 E-FILED BRIEF
1112/21/2012 APPELLANT APPENDIX
1212/21/2012 E-FILED APPENDIX
1312/24/2012 Rcv'd $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21635)
1412/28/2012 Rcv'd 7 copies of ATB from CSD
1512/28/2012 Rcv'd 6 copies of ATA from CSD
1601/14/2013 REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT BY APPELLEE
1701/14/2013 E-FILED MOTION
1801/18/2013 APPELLEE BRIEF
1901/18/2013 APPELLEE APPENDIX
2001/18/2013 DISK (AEB)(e-mailed)
2101/23/2013 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
2201/25/2013 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Request to waive OA by Appellee). Granted
2302/19/2013 APPEARANCES: Benjamin C. Pulkrabek; Appellee waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f)
2402/19/2013 ARGUED: Benjamin C. Pulkrabek; Appellee waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f)
2502/19/2013 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
2602/26/2013 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP.
2702/26/2013 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam
2802/27/2013 Judgment Sent to Parties
2903/05/2013 PETITION FOR REHEARING
3003/05/2013 E-FILED BRIEF
3103/06/2013 Received 7 copies of the PER from Central Duplicating
3204/04/2013 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied: 04/04/2013
3304/16/2013 MANDATE
3404/19/2013 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 12/19/2014