State v. Taylor

North Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Taylor

2019 ND 152, 929 N.W.2d 95

CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJune 27, 2019

Docket20190005

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 ND 152 (State v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 2019 ND 152, 929 N.W.2d 95 (N.D. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Joshua Taylor appeals from a district court order denying his motion for a new trial. He argues the district court erred in determining he failed to establish (a) the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of the defendant's lack of diligence and (b) the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely have resulted in an acquittal. See State v. Atkins , 2019 ND 145 , ¶ 17, 928 N.W.2d 441 . Taylor argues that after his trial he discovered evidence that would have impeached the State's only witness on a collateral issue. Essentially, Taylor argues that if he had had this evidence to impeach the officer, the jury would have disbelieved other aspects of the officer's testimony and returned an acquittal. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

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

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Joshua Taylor appeals from a district court order denying his motion for a new trial. He argues the district court erred in determining he failed to establish (a) the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of the defendant's lack of diligence and (b) the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely have resulted in an acquittal. See State v. Atkins , 2019 ND 145 , ¶ 17, 928 N.W.2d 441 . Taylor argues that after his trial he discovered evidence that would have impeached the State's only witness on a collateral issue. Essentially, Taylor argues that if he had had this evidence to impeach the officer, the jury would have disbelieved other aspects of the officer's testimony and returned an acquittal. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jon J. Jensen

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2019 ND 152, 929 N.W.2d 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-nd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack