State v. Johnson

142 N.W.2d 110, 1966 N.D. LEXIS 184
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedApril 27, 1966
DocketCr. 333
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 142 N.W.2d 110 (State v. Johnson) 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
State v. Johnson, 142 N.W.2d 110, 1966 N.D. LEXIS 184 (N.D. 1966).

Opinion

*111 TEIGEN, Chief Justice.

On September 3, 1965, the defendant moved the District Court of Ward County for the dismissal of a criminal action brought against him on the following ground:

That the Defendant, Bernard William Johnson, was on the 19th day of September, 1961, held to answer for a public offense, to-wit, burglary; that no information has been filed, nor indictment found against him at the next general term of the District Court at which a jury was called.

The District Court denied the motion, and this appeal is attempted from the order of denial.

At the outset we are met by the contention of the State that the order of the District Court denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution is nonappealable. If this contention be sound, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, and it must be dismissed without a consideration of the merits involved.

Section 29-28-06, N.D.C.C., provides that an appeal may be taken by the defendant from the following:

1. A verdict of guilty;
2. A final judgment of conviction;
3. An order refusing a motion in arrest of judgment;
4. An order denying a motion for a new trial; or
5. An order made after judgment affecting any substantial right of the party.

There is no right of appeal in the absence of a statute conferring such. State v. Fortune, 29 N.D. 289, 150 N.W. 926; Quarton v. O’Neil, 51 N.D. 842, 200 N.W. 1010. Since Section 29-28-06, supra, does not authorize an appeal from an order denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution against him, the contention of the State is well taken and requires a dismissal of this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

STRUTZ, ERICKSTAD, and KNUD-SON, JJ., concur. MURRAY, J., not being a member of the Court at the time of submission of this case, did not participate.

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

Related

State v. Gohl
477 N.W.2d 205 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Robideaux
475 N.W.2d 915 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Yagow
423 N.W.2d 804 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Rippley
319 N.W.2d 129 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Nordquist
309 N.W.2d 109 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Fischer
270 N.W.2d 345 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1978)
State v. Bauer
153 N.W.2d 895 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 N.W.2d 110, 1966 N.D. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-nd-1966.