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: |
|
| Term: |
02/2013 Argument: 02/19/2013 09:30am
|
| ND cite: |
2013 ND 22
|
| NW cite: |
828 N.W.2d 546
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
|
|
|
| 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
|
| 1 | | 09/25/2012 | |
NOTICE OF APPEAL: 09/24/2012 |
| 2 | | 09/25/2012 | |
ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT |
| 3 | | 10/24/2012 | |
ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED 10/23/12 (ENTRY NOS.1-2, 4-38, 40-45, 46-48, items not sent 3,39,46) |
| 4 | | 11/13/2012 | |
TRANSCRIPT DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2012, & C.O.S. |
| 5 | | 11/13/2012 | |
DISK-TRA (9/4/12) E-MAILED |
| 6 | | 12/11/2012 | |
MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF |
| 7 | | 12/11/2012 | |
ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 01/06/2012 |
| 8 | | 12/11/2012 | |
ELEC. SUPP. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED DECEMBER 11, 2012 (ENTRY NOS. 49-51) |
| 9 | | 12/21/2012 | |
APPELLANT BRIEF |
| 10 | | 12/21/2012 | |
E-FILED BRIEF |
| 11 | | 12/21/2012 | |
APPELLANT APPENDIX |
| 12 | | 12/21/2012 | |
E-FILED APPENDIX |
| 13 | | 12/24/2012 | |
Rcv'd $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21635) |
| 14 | | 12/28/2012 | |
Rcv'd 7 copies of ATB from CSD |
| 15 | | 12/28/2012 | |
Rcv'd 6 copies of ATA from CSD |
| 16 | | 01/14/2013 | |
REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT BY APPELLEE |
| 17 | | 01/14/2013 | |
E-FILED MOTION |
| 18 | | 01/18/2013 | |
APPELLEE BRIEF |
| 19 | | 01/18/2013 | |
APPELLEE APPENDIX |
| 20 | | 01/18/2013 | |
DISK (AEB)(e-mailed) |
| 21 | | 01/23/2013 | |
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT |
| 22 | | 01/25/2013 | |
ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Request to waive OA by Appellee). Granted |
| 23 | | 02/19/2013 | |
APPEARANCES: Benjamin C. Pulkrabek; Appellee waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f) |
| 24 | | 02/19/2013 | |
ARGUED: Benjamin C. Pulkrabek; Appellee waived under N.D.R.App.P. 34(f) |
| 25 | | 02/19/2013 | |
ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST |
| 26 | | 02/26/2013 | |
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BY SUMMARY DISP. |
| 27 | | 02/26/2013 | |
UNANIMOUS OPINION: Per Curiam |
| 28 | | 02/27/2013 | |
Judgment Sent to Parties |
| 29 | | 03/05/2013 | |
PETITION FOR REHEARING |
| 30 | | 03/05/2013 | |
E-FILED BRIEF |
| 31 | | 03/06/2013 | |
Received 7 copies of the PER from Central Duplicating |
| 32 | | 04/04/2013 | |
ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied: 04/04/2013 |
| 33 | | 04/16/2013 | |
MANDATE |
| 34 | | 04/19/2013 | |
RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE |