State v. Taylor
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
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
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.
 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.
 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.
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.
|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|
|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)|
|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|
|24||05/30/2019||Paper Filed Document|
|26||05/30/2019||Paper Filed Document|
|27||05/31/2019||Rec'd c.o.s. of AEB by email|