State v. Lindeman
Opinion
FILED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
DECEMBER 9, 2021
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2021 ND 220
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v.
Barry Mervyn Lindeman, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20210159
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Christopher W. Nelson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.
State v. Lindeman
No. 20210159
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Barry Mervyn Lindeman appeals from a judgment of conviction for gross sexual imposition, arguing there was insufficient evidence the offense happened within the time period listed in the charging documents and jury instructions.
[¶2] “A precise date or time period is not required in a criminal prosecution unless time is an essential element of an offense.” Davies v. State, 2018 ND 211, ¶ 17, 917 N.W.2d 8. Time is not an element of gross sexual imposition. Id. at ¶ 20. Because Lindeman’s only argument pertains to the timeline and this Court has held a precise time period is not required, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2021 ND 220 (State v. Lindeman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.