n.d.c.c. refusal when defendant asked for attorney

What happens if a defendant is not served by publication?

N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(b) and one count of refusal to submit to blood alcohol testing in violation of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(e)(2). Suelzle appeals from the judgment, asserting the court erred in denying his motion to suppress and dismiss. II [¶9] Suelzle asserts the federal law enforcement officer did not have

What is a conditional right of first refusal?

N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(b) and refusal to take a blood test is defined under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(e). The issue was not raised on appeal by Beltran. We have previously declined to determine whether the separate subsections of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1) are separate offenses or alternatives of the single offense of driving under the influence

How to file a complaint and declaration for service of summons?

authorized by N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07. Under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(5), the State may appeal from “[a]n order . . . suppressing evidence . . . when accompanied by a statement of the prosecuting attorney asserting that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.”

When co-defendants have antagonistic or conflicting defenses and these positions make a joint trial unfair

When co-defendants have antagonistic or conflicting defenses and these positions make a joint trial unfair, the Court should deny a motion to join even if the joinder is allowable by statute. State v. Lowery

What is not excluded by the hearsay rule?

N.C.R.Evid. 804(b)(3): “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness: . . . (3) Statement Against Interest. – A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject him to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by him against another, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability is not admissible in a criminal case unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.” tate v. Wilson

What is the duty of a prosecutor to inform defendants of plea agreements?

Constitutional, statutory, and case law requirements impose a duty on the prosecutor to inform defendants of plea agreements with testifying co-defendants, and allow defendants to cross-examine testifying co-defendants about the terms of the plea agreements.

What did the defendant ask in State v. Westbrooks?

43 (1996), the defendant sought to call co-defendant Cashwell’s attorney to ask about the advantages of the plea agreement Cashwell had with the State. The attorney asserted Cashwell’s attorney-client privilege, and the trial court did not allow the defense to ask these questions. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting this testimony, since Cashwell had testified in some detail about the nature and extent of her plea agreement with the State.

What was the purpose of State v Letterlough?

In State v. Letterlough, 53 N.C.App. 693 (1981), the prosecutor asked the testifying co-defendant how he met the defendant; the witness answered that he met the defendant when he (the witness) was “on the chain gang.” The Court acknowledged that “unless the accused produces evidence of good character to repel the charges against him, the State may not introduce evidence of defendant's bad character,” but noted that evidence relevant for some purpose other than proving character may be introduced although it incidentally bears on defendant's character. In this case, it was not error to admit this evidence because it was relevant to establish the existence of a relationship which would make plausible defendant's coming to the witness for help to bury the body.

What is the case of State v. Galloway?

In State v. Galloway, 145 N.C.App. 555 (2001), the victim testified that she was forced into the vehicle with the defendant and his testifying co-defendant and then forced to perform oral sex; the co-defendant testified that the victim voluntarily got into the car to perform acts of prostitution, but later the defendant held a gun to the victim’s head. The defendant contended that as one of these versions had to be false, the State had knowingly offered perjured testimony and his due process rights were thus violated. The court found no violation: “A prosecutor's presentation of known false evidence, allowed to go uncorrected, is a violation of a defendant's right to due process. The State has a duty to correct any false evidence which in any reasonable likelihood could affect the jury's decision. However, if the evidence is inconsistent or contradictory, rather than a knowing falsehood, such contradictions in the State's evidence are for the jury to consider and resolve.” See Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); State v. Williams,

What is the 801d E?

.C.R.Evid. 801(d)(E): “A statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offeredN against a party and it is . . .(E) a statement by a coconspirator of such party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” tate v. Valentine

What happened in Williams v. Dor?

100862 (October 21, 2014) Driver’s license was suspended after her arrest for DWI. She had been driving a Ford Escape on a private driveway when she ran off the road, crashed into a tree, and overturned. The trial court reinstated the license finding that because she was not driving on a public road or highway, the suspension statute did not apply. DOR appealed.

What was the case in Mammah v. State?

State v. Mammah, No. 33039 (November 4, 2014) Defendant was convicted of DWI. On appeal, he claimed that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was under the influence of alcohol while he was operating a motor vehicle.