City of Dickinson v. Simonieg

North Dakota Supreme Court

City of Dickinson v. Simonieg

136 N.W.2d 126, 1965 N.D. LEXIS 132

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1965

DocketCr. No. 324

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 N.W.2d 126 (City of Dickinson v. Simonieg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Dickinson v. Simonieg, 136 N.W.2d 126, 1965 N.D. LEXIS 132 (N.D. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

TEIGEN, Judge.

The defendant was found guilty in the police magistrate’s court of the City of Dickinson of violating a city ordinance in that he operated a motor vehicle on the streets of the City of Dickinson while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed from the judgment of the police magistrate to the District Court of Stark County. The defendant waived a jury and the case was tried to the court. The defendant was found guilty. Judgment of conviction was entered and the defendant was sentenced. He has appealed to this court from the judgment of conviction. There was no motion for a new trial. The only assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The City of Dickinson argues that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction cannot be raised for the first time in this court and cites in support thereof State v. Johnson, 68 N.D. 236, 278 N.W. 241. In that case a jury trial was waived and the case was tried to the court and judgment of conviction rendered. The defendants appealed from the judgment. The principal contention of the argument was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. There had been no motion for new trial. This court refused to review the evidence. It stated in the syllabus:

“Whether a judgment of conviction in a criminal case is sustained by the evidence cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.”

The case cited governs this case.

Where there is no motion for a new trial, the defendant has no right to a review of the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time in the Supreme Court. However, it appears to be a general rule that in all such cases the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may review the sufficiency of the evidence if, in its opinion, there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1694(2). There appearing to be no miscarriage of justice [128]*128m this case, we see no reason to relax the rule.

For the reasons aforesaid, we affirm the judgment.

BURKE, C. J., and STRUTZ, ERICK-STAD, and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEIGEN, Judge.

The defendant was found guilty in the police magistrate’s court of the City of Dickinson of violating a city ordinance in that he operated a motor vehicle on the streets of the City of Dickinson while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed from the judgment of the police magistrate to the District Court of Stark County. The defendant waived a jury and the case was tried to the court. The defendant was found guilty. Judgment of conviction was entered and the defendant was sentenced. He has appealed to this court from the judgment of conviction. There was no motion for a new trial. The only assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The City of Dickinson argues that the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction cannot be raised for the first time in this court and cites in support thereof State v. Johnson, 68 N.D. 236, 278 N.W. 241. In that case a jury trial was waived and the case was tried to the court and judgment of conviction rendered. The defendants appealed from the judgment. The principal contention of the argument was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. There had been no motion for new trial. This court refused to review the evidence. It stated in the syllabus:

“Whether a judgment of conviction in a criminal case is sustained by the evidence cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.”

The case cited governs this case.

Where there is no motion for a new trial, the defendant has no right to a review of the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time in the Supreme Court. However, it appears to be a general rule that in all such cases the Supreme Court, in its discretion, may review the sufficiency of the evidence if, in its opinion, there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1694(2). There appearing to be no miscarriage of justice [128]*128m this case, we see no reason to relax the rule.

For the reasons aforesaid, we affirm the judgment.

BURKE, C. J., and STRUTZ, ERICK-STAD, and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.W.2d 126, 1965 N.D. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-dickinson-v-simonieg-nd-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack