State v. Ernst
, 2008 ND 123,
Order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. Gendron
, 2008 ND 70,
747 N.W.2d 125
Restitution orders will be affirmed unless the district court acted outside the limits set by statute, which is similar to an abuse of discretion standard.
The prosecution has the burden of proving the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.
Evidentiary imprecision on the amount of damages does not preclude recovery by restitution.
State v. Darby
, 2008 ND 43,
747 N.W.2d 136
A criminal judgment for burglary and simple assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
City of Jamestown v. Baker
, 2007 ND 189,
742 N.W.2d 839
A criminal judgment for theft is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Hemmes
, 2007 ND 161,
740 N.W.2d 81
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) does not apply to probation revocation proceedings.
The evidentiary disclosure requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 apply to probation revocation proceedings.
State v. Washington
, 2007 ND 138,
737 N.W.2d 382
The probable cause standard is the same for both searches and arrests.
Once a vehicle has been validly stopped and its occupants lawfully detained, law enforcement officers may constitutionally order the driver and passengers out of the vehicle, even in situations not amounting to arrest.
Law enforcement officers have the right to use appropriate forcible means to effectuate an arrest.
An officer's subjective intent plays no role in ordinary probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis.
State v. Mulske
, 2007 ND 43,
729 N.W.2d 129
If an accused desires to exercise his constitutional right to testify, the accused must act affirmatively and express to the court his desire to do so at the appropriate time or a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right is deemed to have
occurred.
Unlike other constitutional rights that can be waived only after the court makes a formal inquiry, the court does not have a duty to verify that the defendant who is not testifying has waived his or her right voluntarily. Instead, the court is
entitled to presume the attorney and the client discussed the right, and the defendant voluntarily agreed upon the final decision.
State v. Moore
, 2007 ND 7,
725 N.W.2d 910
An appellate court will not reverse a finding of good cause for a grant of additional time unless the trial court abused its discretion. Factors considered when deciding whether good cause exists to grant additional time are the length of delay, the
reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.
Section 29-33-03, N.D.C.C., provides an exception to the requirement that an order be written and signed before it is final. It allows the trial court to rule on a request for additional time in open court.
State v. DeGroot
, 2006 ND 201,
725 N.W.2d 588
Conviction of theft of property summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
City of Fargo v. Komad
, 2006 ND 177,
720 N.W.2d 619
A defendant's constitutional right to be present at trial is met when the defendant appears and is tried in municipal court and there is no constitutional right to be present for trial anew on appeal in district court.
Under the N.D. Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant convicted in municipal court has a right to be present for a trial anew in district court on appeal.
Proceeding with a trial anew on appeal to district court, when the defendant is absent, is not harmless error.
State v. Bjerklie
, 2006 ND 173,
719 N.W.2d 359
A court's ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
A court abuses its discretion in granting a motion in limine when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner.
State v. Ruud
, 2006 ND 94,
719 N.W.2d 384
Conviction for theft of property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).
State v. Stavig
, 2006 ND 63,
711 N.W.2d 183
Probation and restitution in a felony case may be extended for only one additional period of probation, not to exceed five years.
Ona revocation of probation appeal: (1) the Court reviews under a clearly erroneous standard whether the defendant violated his or her probation; and (2) the Court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard whether the district court's revoking
the defendant's probation.
State v. Freeman
, 2006 ND 6,
711 N.W.2d 606
A district court's rejection of an application of post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Issues not briefed by an appellant are abandoned and will not be considered on appeal.
State v. Sims
, 2004 ND 144,
683 N.W.2d 884
The district court may provide for the possibility of work release in accordance with the guidelines of a correctional facility.
State v. Gill
, 2004 ND 137,
681 N.W.2d 832
The State has the burden in a restitution hearing to prove the amount of restitution by a preponderance of the evidence.
The defendant has the burden to raise and prove an inability to pay the amount of restitution ordered.
State v. Nordahl
, 2004 ND 106,
680 N.W.2d 247
A district court does not abuse its discretion when it revokes probation for failure to pay restitution without holding a hearing when a defendant agreed to restitution as part of a plea agreement.
State v. Wilson
, 2004 ND 51,
676 N.W.2d 98
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports no reasonable inference of guilt.
Failure to give defendant's requested instruction is not error when the requested instruction misstates the law and when the instruction might unnecessarily confuse the jury.
State v. Heupel
, 2003 ND 107,
670 N.W.2d 359
Convictions for theft by deception and tampering with physical evidence are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
State v. Moore
, 2002 ND 91,
647 N.W.2d 706
The defendant's convictions for theft of property, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and reckless driving are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
State v. Moore
, 2002 ND 89,
647 N.W.2d 706
Conviction for theft of property is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3), (4).
City of Grand Forks v. Thong
, 2002 ND 48,
640 N.W.2d 721
The legislature set twenty-eight days as the time a defendant in municipal court has to request a trial by jury.
Once a defendant requests a jury trial, a subsequent waiver of the right to a jury trial must be express.
Without evidence in the files of a municipal court of a defendant's obligation to appear, there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant failed to appear.
State v. Perreault
, 2002 ND 14,
638 N.W.2d 541
A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the information, but does not serve as a device for summary trial of the evidence.
A trial court may not grant a pretrial motion to dismiss based on a defense which raises factual questions embraced in the general issue of the defendant's guilt.
State v. BlackCloud
, 2002 ND 11,
642 N.W.2d 532
Trial court's order revoking probation is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).
State v. Clark
, 2001 ND 194,
636 N.W.2d 660
Failure to file a transcript may prevent a party from being successful on appeal.
A trial court may modify conditions of probation if a defendant fails to pay adequate restitution.
State v. Gates
, 2001 ND 196,
639 N.W.2d 706
The trial court's denial of a motion to deem a class C felony theft conviction to be a misdemeanor under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-02(9) is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a).
State v. Kensmoe
, 2001 ND 190,
636 N.W.2d 183
A trial court acts within its statutory authority when extending a defendant's probationary period following a restitution hearing.
An extension of a probation period does not subject a defendant to multiple punishments in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy.
A challenge to the constitutionality of a statute must be properly preserved for appeal, and the record on appeal must allow for a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute.
State v. Norrid
, 2000 ND 112,
611 N.W.2d 866
Under the federal due process clause, the admissibility of evidence of an eyewitness identification of a defendant requires a determination of whether the identification procedure is unnecessarily or impermissibly suggestive, and if so, whether the
identification is reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
The voluntariness of a confession is examined under a totality-of-the-circumstances test.
State v. Fraser
, 2000 ND 53,
608 N.W.2d 244
A jury may infer from the surrounding facts and circumstances whether the defendant engaged in conduct "knowingly."
Evidence corroborating an accomplice's testimony need not be incriminating itself, and is sufficient if it relates to a material fact and tends to connect the defendant to the crime.
State v. Strutz
, 2000 ND 22,
606 N.W.2d 886
A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the defendant was so prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
An Appellant challenging the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict must show the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, reveals no reasonable inference of guilt; a verdict based on circumstantial evidence carries the
same presumption of correctness as a verdict based on direct evidence.
State v. Farrell
, 2000 ND 26,
606 N.W.2d 524
The N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c) requirement that the court inquire whether the defendant's willingness to plead guilty resulted from previous discussions between the prosecuting attorney and the defendant is intended to alert the trial court about plea
negotiations so the court can further inquire about the negotiation process to assess the defendant's understanding of the terms of any resulting agreements.
Withdrawal of a defendant's guilty plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice if the trial court has not substantially complied with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(c) and the record shows the defendant did not understand the nature of his informal agreement
for a nonbinding sentence recommendation from the State.
State v. Stibbe
, 1999 ND 231,
606 N.W.2d 137
Criminal judgment and commitment and jury verdict of guilty summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3).
State v. Tuchscherer
, 1999 ND 209,
606 N.W.2d 137
Judgment of conviction for theft of property summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1).
State v. Wamre
, 1999 ND 164,
599 N.W.2d 268
Probable cause to search exists if it is established that certain identifiable objects are probably connected with criminal activity and are probably to be found at the present time at an identifiable place.
In executing a search warrant, a seizure of evidence of a crime found in plain view is legitimate even though the items seized are not listed in the search warrant.
A defendant may get a hearing to challenge the truthfulness of an affidavit in support of a search warrant request by alleging, and offering to prove, deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, or statements intentionally or recklessly
misleading by omission.
A decision to join offenses or defendants for trial is left to the discretion of the trial court.
State v. Stephens
, 1999 ND 101,
598 N.W.2d 860
District court's order revoking probation summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).
State v. McKing
, 1999 ND 81,
593 N.W.2d 342
Theft is not a lesser included offense of robbery.
State v. Burckhard
, 1999 ND 64,
592 N.W.2d 523
Under the law of the case doctrine, legal questions decided by an appellate court will not be differently determined on a subsequent appeal in the same case where the facts remain the same.
The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the trial court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect
according to its terms.
State v. Palmer
, 1999 ND 40,
592 N.W.2d 923
Order denying N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Burger
, 1999 ND 30,
590 N.W.2d 197
The intended victim's failure to rely upon the defendant's deceptive conduct does not preclude liability for attempted theft by deception.
State v. Ebach
, 1999 ND 5,
589 N.W.2d 566
Comments made by the state's attorney during closing argument do not deny defendant a fair trial and require reversal where curative instructions, as well as jury instructions, prior to deliberations prevent the comments from being prejudicial.
Motion for continuance is properly denied where defense counsel had access to information on the subject prior to trial and had reason to believe the statement would be elicited.
Sufficient evidence supports a conviction for theft of property where the jury hears testimony regarding both the market value and replacement cost of various items.
State v. Burckhard
, 1998 ND 121,
579 N.W.2d 194
Neither the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment nor N.D.
Const. Art. I, Section 3, preclude the civil courts from assuming
jurisdiction over the prosecution of theft charges against a
Roman Catholic priest.
To withstand an Establishment Clause challenge, a statute must
have a secular legislative purpose, its principle or primary
effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not
foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
A motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b) is not an
appropriate vehicle to resolve fact questions, and all pleaded
facts must be taken as true.
State v. Poitra
, 1998 ND 88,
578 N.W.2d 121
A criminal defendant's waiver of the right to counsel must be
knowing and intelligent.
State v. Damron
, 1998 ND 71,
575 N.W.2d 912
Whether probable cause exists to support the issuance of a search
warrant for the defendant's residence is reviewed using the
"totality of the circumstances" approach.
Trial court's implicit findings rejecting defendant's allegations
of deliberate falsity by police officer in search warrant
affidavit are not clearly erroneous.
State v. Hagen
, 1998 ND 36,
574 N.W.2d 585
Criminal Judgment is affirmed when substantial evidence supports
jury verdict.
District court is not obligated to call a witness that defense
counsel does not call because counsel believed the witness would
testify falsely.
State v. Feigert
, 1997 ND 216,
575 N.W.2d 224
Conviction of issuing check without account summarily affirmed
under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1.
State v. Fulks
, 1997 ND 143,
566 N.W.2d 418
An incarcerated defendant's right to have charges unrelated to
his current incarceration tried within 90 days of giving notice
to the court and state's attorney under the Detainers Act,
Chapter 29-33, N.D.C.C., is not violated, where the conduct of
the defendant and the defendant's attorney substantially
contribute to the case not being brought to trial within 90 days.
Delays or continuances primarily resulting from the conduct of a
defendant or the defendant's attorney cannot be charged against
the State in a claim of failure to bring a case to trial within
90 days.
The appointment of counsel to represent a petitioner under the
Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act is discretionary with the
trial court, and the court's decision to not appoint an attorney
will not be overturned on appeal unless the court has abused its
discretion.
State v. Kenner
, 1997 ND 1,
559 N.W.2d 538
An officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that
a motorist has violated or is about to violate a law in order to
legally stop a vehicle.
Knowledge held by one officer can be imputed to another officer,
but the first officer must have had a reasonable and articulable
suspicion that a law has been or is about to be violated.
State v. Trosen
,
547 N.W.2d 735 (N.D. 1996)
State v. Woehlhoff
,
540 N.W.2d 162 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Olsen
,
540 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Kerbaugh
,
544 N.W.2d 176 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Gates
,
540 N.W.2d 134 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Clinkscales
,
536 N.W.2d 661 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Runck
,
534 N.W.2d 829 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Marshall
,
531 N.W.2d 284 (N.D. 1995)
State v. Zimmerman
,
524 N.W.2d 111 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Daulton
,
518 N.W.2d 719 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Schweitzer
,
510 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1994)
State v. Pacheco
,
506 N.W.2d 408 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Frohlich
,
506 N.W.2d 729 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Thompson
,
504 N.W.2d 838 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Ensz
,
503 N.W.2d 236 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Goulet
,
503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Rath
,
503 N.W.2d 848 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Gates
,
496 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Pippin
,
496 N.W.2d 50 (N.D. 1993)
State v. Halbom
,
495 N.W.2d 83 (N.D. 1993)
City of Fargo v. Maashio
,
494 N.W.2d 174 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Heintze
,
482 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Barth
,
485 N.W.2d 353 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Flynn
,
479 N.W.2d 477 (N.D. 1992)
State v. Gohl
,
477 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Brakke
,
474 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Schmitz
,
474 N.W.2d 249 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Woehlhoff
,
473 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Counts
,
472 N.W.2d 756 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Farzaneh
,
468 N.W.2d 638 (N.D. 1991)
State v. Hersch
,
467 N.W.2d 463 (N.D. 1991)
State v. DeCoteau
,
464 N.W.2d 605 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Lovejoy
,
464 N.W.2d 386 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Martinsons
,
462 N.W.2d 458 (N.D. 1990)
City of Fargo v. Gustafson
,
462 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Gefroh
,
458 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Haugen
,
458 N.W.2d 288 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Blumler
,
458 N.W.2d 300 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Dimmler
,
456 N.W.2d 297 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Hogie
,
454 N.W.2d 501 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Werre
,
453 N.W.2d 826 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Manhattan
,
453 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 1990)
State v. Haugen
,
449 N.W.2d 784 (N.D. 1989)
City of Dickinson v. Gresz
,
450 N.W.2d 216 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Haugen
,
448 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Morrison
,
447 N.W.2d 272 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Bohe
,
447 N.W.2d 277 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Hersch
,
445 N.W.2d 626 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Vavrosky
,
442 N.W.2d 433 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Dallmann
,
441 N.W.2d 912 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Bastien
,
436 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1989)
State v. Schmitz
,
431 N.W.2d 305 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Falos
,
431 N.W.2d 154 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Haugen
,
433 N.W.2d 554 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Fercho
,
433 N.W.2d 554 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Johnson
,
425 N.W.2d 903 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Hogie
,
424 N.W.2d 630 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Askjem
,
425 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Retzlaff
,
425 N.W.2d 379 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Jacobson
,
419 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Kopp
,
419 N.W.2d 169 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Jensen
,
418 N.W.2d 776 (N.D. 1988)
State v. Kaiser
,
417 N.W.2d 376 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Brandon
,
413 N.W.2d 340 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Kraft
,
413 N.W.2d 303 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Huwe
,
413 N.W.2d 350 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Hegg
,
410 N.W.2d 152 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Siegel
,
404 N.W.2d 469 (N.D. 1987)
State v. Micko
,
393 N.W.2d 741 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Altringer
,
388 N.W.2d 864 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Kautzman
,
383 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1986)
State v. Fuller
,
379 N.W.2d 289 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Matuska
,
379 N.W.2d 273 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Riedinger
,
374 N.W.2d 866 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Nace
,
371 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Biby
,
366 N.W.2d 460 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Haugen
,
365 N.W.2d 549 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Thompson
,
359 N.W.2d 374 (N.D. 1985)
State v. Welch
,
356 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Kunze
,
350 N.W.2d 36 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Wolf
,
347 N.W.2d 573 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Lawenstein
,
346 N.W.2d 292 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Saul
,
346 N.W.2d 282 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Hatch
,
346 N.W.2d 268 (N.D. 1984)
State v. Eugene
,
340 N.W.2d 18 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Wunderlich
,
338 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Peterson
,
334 N.W.2d 483 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Discoe
,
334 N.W.2d 466 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Demery
,
331 N.W.2d 7 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Koskela
,
329 N.W.2d 587 (N.D. 1983)
State v. Christian
,
328 N.W.2d 815 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Rovang
,
325 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Tetukevich
,
325 N.W.2d 205 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Werre
,
325 N.W.2d 172 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Cox
,
325 N.W.2d 181 (N.D. 1982)
State v. DeCoteau
,
325 N.W.2d 187 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Allery
,
322 N.W.2d 228 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Dachtler
,
318 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Bryan
,
316 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1982)
State v. McCabe
,
315 N.W.2d 672 (N.D. 1982)
State v. Mortrud
,
312 N.W.2d 354 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Arne
,
311 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Kaufman
,
310 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Johnson
,
301 N.W.2d 625 (N.D. 1981)
State v. Lewis
,
300 N.W.2d 210 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Klodt
,
298 N.W.2d 783 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Swenningson
,
297 N.W.2d 405 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Lesmeister
,
293 N.W.2d 875 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Lesmeister
,
288 N.W.2d 57 (N.D. 1980)
State v. Arntz
,
286 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Moore
,
286 N.W.2d 274 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Yodsnukis
,
281 N.W.2d 255 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Page
,
277 N.W.2d 112 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Larson
,
277 N.W.2d 120 (N.D. 1979)
State v. Wilson
,
267 N.W.2d 550 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Bruggeman
,
263 N.W.2d 870 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Thorstad
,
261 N.W.2d 899 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Hamann
,
262 N.W.2d 495 (N.D. 1978)
State v. Rudolph
,
260 N.W.2d 13 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Carlson
,
258 N.W.2d 253 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Thompson
,
256 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Lueder
,
252 N.W.2d 861 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Jelliff
,
251 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Bourbeau
,
250 N.W.2d 259 (N.D. 1977)
State v. Lafromboise
,
246 N.W.2d 616 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Frye
,
245 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Storbakken
,
246 N.W.2d 78 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Stockert
,
245 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Gann
,
244 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Davies
,
244 N.W.2d 540 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Grenz
,
243 N.W.2d 375 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Metzner
,
244 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Azure
,
243 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Azure
,
241 N.W.2d 699 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Smith
,
238 N.W.2d 662 (N.D. 1976)
State v. Allen
,
237 N.W.2d 154 (N.D. 1975)
State v. McKay
,
234 N.W.2d 853 (N.D. 1975)
State v. Erickson
,
231 N.W.2d 758 (N.D. 1975)
State v. Johnson
,
231 N.W.2d 180 (N.D. 1975)
State v. DePriest
,
206 N.W.2d 859 (N.D. 1973)
State v. Miller
,
202 N.W.2d 673 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Ankney
,
195 N.W.2d 547 (N.D. 1972)
State v. Howe
,
182 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1970)
State v. Anderson
,
172 N.W.2d 597 (N.D. 1969)
State v. Helmenstein
,
163 N.W.2d 85 (N.D. 1968)
State v. Smith
,
153 N.W.2d 691 (N.D. 1967)
State v. Starratt
,
153 N.W.2d 311 (N.D. 1967)
State v. Marmon
,
154 N.W.2d 55 (N.D. 1967)
State v. Williams
,
150 N.W.2d 844 (N.D. 1967)
State v. Wilson
,
142 N.W.2d 106 (N.D. 1966)
State v. Johnson
,
142 N.W.2d 110 (N.D. 1966)