State v. Simundson

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Simundson

2019 ND 6, 921 N.W.2d 175

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 2019

Docket20180223

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2019 ND 6 (State v. Simundson) 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. Simundson, 2019 ND 6, 921 N.W.2d 175 (N.D. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Shane L. Simundson appealed from a jury verdict finding him guilty of actual physical control under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. Simundson argues that he was parked in an area to which the public had no right of access, and thus there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7), concluding there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the conviction. See State v. Novak , 338 N.W.2d 637 , 639-40 (N.D. 1983) (agreeing with other courts that the prohibition on actual physical control applies anywhere within a state); see also State v. Mayland , 2017 ND 244 , 902 N.W.2d 762 .

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

[¶3] We concur only in the result. Our decision here is required by Novak, and Simundson has not asked us to overrule Novak. Novak's rationale was doubtful when decided because it drained all substantive content from "public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use."

Mayland has restored some substance to this provision, undermining Novak. In an appropriate case, we would be open to reconsidering Novak.

[¶4] Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

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

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Shane L. Simundson appealed from a jury verdict finding him guilty of actual physical control under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. Simundson argues that he was parked in an area to which the public had no right of access, and thus there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7), concluding there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the conviction. See State v. Novak , 338 N.W.2d 637 , 639-40 (N.D. 1983) (agreeing with other courts that the prohibition on actual physical control applies anywhere within a state); see also State v. Mayland , 2017 ND 244 , 902 N.W.2d 762 .

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

[¶3] We concur only in the result. Our decision here is required by Novak, and Simundson has not asked us to overrule Novak. Novak's rationale was doubtful when decided because it drained all substantive content from "public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use."

Mayland has restored some substance to this provision, undermining Novak. In an appropriate case, we would be open to reconsidering Novak.

[¶4] Jerod E. Tufte

Jon J. Jensen

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2019 ND 6, 921 N.W.2d 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simundson-nd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack