State v. Taylor

Docket No. 20190005
Oral Argument: Thursday, June 20, 2019 1:30 PM

Docket Info

Title
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Joshua Ryan Taylor, Defendant and Appellant
Case Type
CRIMINAL APPEAL : DUI/DUS
Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CR-00064
Southeast Judicial District, Richland County
Bradley Allen Cruff

Parties' Statement of Issues

  • Appellant

    1. The district court erred in denying defense’s requested New Trial Motion. In review of the transcripts of the lower courts hearing and based on the above mentioned supreme court cases’ opinions… defense argues the lower courts holding is not in cases involving conflict of testimony and/or new trial motions. The lower court erred in its holding that the defendant should’ve or could’ve deposed the deputy at hand, and thus failed the second prong of the test for new trial.
    2. Defense alleges the district court erred in denying defense’s motion for new trial when it alleges that the defense failed prong 4 of the test for new trial. The lower court never specifically names how the defense did not show a likelihood the newly discovered evidence would likely result in acquittal. Defense argues, it satisfied that likelihood and more specifically that the court did not give specific evidence or reason why the defense’s newly discovered evidence would NOT have had a likelihood to affect accuital.

  • Appellee 1

    [1] Whether the district court erred in finding that the Appellant's failure to learn about evidence at the time of trial was due to his lack of diligence.
    [2] Whether the district court erred in finding that the weight and quality of Appellant's newly discovered evidence would likely not result in an acquittal.


Summary

Joshua Taylor appeals from the district court’s order denying his second motion for a new trial.

Taylor argues the district court incorrectly determined he failed to meet prongs two and four of the new trial test. He argues, under prong two, the district court is in contradiction to precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States; and under prong four, the district court did not specifically state how he failed to show that the newly discovered evidence would likely result in an acquittal.

The State argues a continuance would have been the proper remedy below and the district court was correct in determining Taylor did not meet prong two of the new trial test because the information was available to him before or during the trial. The State argues Taylor failed to perform due diligence. The State also argues the evidence Taylor presented at the evidentiary hearing was insufficient under prong four of the new trial test.


Briefs

Filing Date Description
05/01/2019 APPELLANT BRIEF View
05/30/2019 APPELLEE BRIEF View

Counsel

Party Type Name
APPELLEE ASST. STATE'S ATTORNEY Casey W. Moen - 07691
APPELLANT PRO SE Joshua Ryan Taylor

(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)

Seq. # Filing Date Description Attachment
1 01/06/2019 NOTICE OF APPEAL : 01/06/2019
2 01/07/2019 NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.
3 01/07/2019 Notice served on Joshua R. Taylor and Casey W. Moen
4 02/01/2019 ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED JANUARY 31, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-74)
5 02/14/2019 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
6 02/14/2019 E-FILED MOTION
7 02/14/2019 ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 03/12/2019
8 03/18/2019 S.Ct. Not. of Dismissal/Failure to Proceed - RspDue : 04/01/2019
9 04/02/2019 MOTION to Order and Allow Transcripts
10 04/09/2019 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted : 04/22/2019
11 04/10/2019 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT (due 4/22/19 - ordered outside the rules) : 04/02/2019
12 04/02/2019 MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF
13 04/10/2019 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE - Granted : 04/30/2019
14 04/22/2019 ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED DECEMBER 6, 2018 & C.O.S.
15 05/01/2019 NO ACTION TAKEN (Not. of Dismissal/Failure to Proceed)
16 05/01/2019 APPELLANT BRIEF View
17 05/22/2019 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
18 05/23/2019 REQUEST TO WAIVE ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLEE
19 05/23/2019 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT - Granted
20 05/28/2019 Rec'd $25 surcharge for ATB (receipt #27087)
21 05/29/2019 NO APPELLANT'S APPENDIX & C.O.S. FILED (EXT. EXPIRED)
22 05/30/2019 Rec'd 6 copies of ATB from Central Duplicating
23 05/30/2019 APPELLEE BRIEF View
24 05/30/2019 Paper Filed Document
25 05/30/2019 APPELLEE APPENDIX
26 05/30/2019 Paper Filed Document
27 05/31/2019 Rec'd c.o.s. of AEB by email