State v. Taylor

2019 ND 152, 929 N.W.2d 95
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Taylor. Read the opinion of the Court — 911 N.W.2d 905
North Dakota Supreme Court·Decided June 27, 2019·No. 20190005·Published

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

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

2019 ND 152 (State v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Atkins
2019 ND 145 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2019)