7 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Flohrgreen2 sentences2006When determining *521 whether to allow alibi evidence when the notice requirements of Rule 12.1 have not been met, “a court ought to take into account, among other particulars of the case, the actual prejudice that will redound to the prosecution if the testimony is allowed and whether the defendant’s failure to inform was in good faith and for good cause.” Flohr , at 372. [¶ 13] Sevigny argues he should have been allowed to present an alibi defense for one of the incidents S.S. claimed occurred during Christmas vacation in 2003. 2006When determining whether to allow alibi evidence when the notice requirements of Rule 12.1 have not been met, “a court ought to take into account, among other particulars of the case, the actual prejudice that will redound to the prosecution if the testimony is allowed and whether the defendant’s failure to inform was in good faith and for good cause.” Flohr , at 372. [¶13] Sevigny argues he should have been allowed to present an alibi defense for one of the incidents S.S. claimed occurred during Christmas vacation in 2003. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vancegreen2 sentences2006The court cited State v. Vance, 537 N.W.2d 545 (N.D.1995), in which this Court said time is not an element of the offense of gross sexual imposition, and an alibi defense is not likely to be a viable defense when a defendant has had continuous access to the child because the defendant is not asserting that he was not alone with the child, but instead is challenging the credibility of the child’s testimony. 2006The court cited State v. Vance , 537 N.W.2d 545 (N.D. 1995), in which this Court said time is not an element of the offense of gross sexual imposition, and an alibi defense is not likely to be a viable defense when a defendant has had continuous access to the child because the defendant is not asserting that he was not alone with the child, but instead is challenging the credibility of the child’s testimony. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sevignygreen2 sentences2017Id.; Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, ¶¶ 8, 15 , 722 N.W.2d 515 ; State v. Kalmio, 2014 ND 101, ¶ 41 , 846 N.W.2d 752 . 2017Id.; Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, ¶¶ 8, 15 , 722 N.W.2d 515 ; State v. Kalmio, 2014 ND 101, ¶ 41 , 846 N.W.2d 752 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cozzagreen2 sentences1995See Jones, 270 Cal.Rptr. at 625 , 792 P.2d at 657 (recognizing that alibi is not “likely to be an available defense” when the defendant has had continuous access to the child); State v. Cozza, 71 Wash.App. 252 , 858 P.2d 270, 274 (1993) [finding that an alibi defense is not likely to be reasonable in resident child molester cases in which the “true issue” is credibility]. 1995See Jones, 270 Cal.Rptr. at 625 , 792 P.2d at 657 (recognizing that alibi is not “likely to be an available defense” when the defendant has had continuous access to the child); State v. Cozza, 71 Wash.App. 252 , 858 P.2d 270, 274 (1993) [finding that an alibi defense is not likely to be reasonable in resident child molester cases in which the “true issue” is credibility]. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences1995See Jones, 270 Cal.Rptr. at 625 , 792 P.2d at 657 (recognizing that alibi is not “likely to be an available defense” when the defendant has had continuous access to the child); State v. Cozza, 71 Wash.App. 252 , 858 P.2d 270, 274 (1993) [finding that an alibi defense is not likely to be reasonable in resident child molester cases in which the “true issue” is credibility]. 1995See Jones, 270 Cal.Rptr. at 625 , 792 P.2d at 657 (recognizing that alibi is not “likely to be an available defense” when the defendant has had continuous access to the child); State v. Cozza, 71 Wash.App. 252 , 858 P.2d 270, 274 (1993) [finding that an alibi defense is not likely to be reasonable in resident child molester cases in which the “true issue” is credibility]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilcoxgreen2 sentences1995Second, it is doubtful that an alibi defense is a realistic possibility because [the defendant] had continual contact with the child.... ” State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Utah 1991) [citations omitted]; See State v. Dunbar, 152 Vt. 399 , 566 A.2d 970, 972-73 (1989) [stating that a defendant does not have a vested right to an alibi defense when time is not an element of the offense]. 1995Second, it is doubtful that an alibi defense is a realistic possibility because [the defendant] had continual contact with the child.... ” State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Utah 1991) [citations omitted]; See State v. Dunbar, 152 Vt. 399 , 566 A.2d 970, 972-73 (1989) [stating that a defendant does not have a vested right to an alibi defense when time is not an element of the offense]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunbargreen2 sentences1995Second, it is doubtful that an alibi defense is a realistic possibility because [the defendant] had continual contact with the child.... ” State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Utah 1991) [citations omitted]; See State v. Dunbar, 152 Vt. 399 , 566 A.2d 970, 972-73 (1989) [stating that a defendant does not have a vested right to an alibi defense when time is not an element of the offense]. 1995Second, it is doubtful that an alibi defense is a realistic possibility because [the defendant] had continual contact with the child.... ” State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Utah 1991) [citations omitted]; See State v. Dunbar, 152 Vt. 399 , 566 A.2d 970, 972-73 (1989) [stating that a defendant does not have a vested right to an alibi defense when time is not an element of the offense]. | 1 | 1 |
Nystrom v. Leegreen1 sentence1980See State v. Nelson, 17 N.D. 13 , 114 N.W. 478 (1908); State v. Gates, 51 N.D. 695 , 200 N.W. 778 (1924). [4] No issue was raised as to the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain such a motion after the appeal had been taken. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen1 sentence1980See State v. Nelson, 17 N.D. 13 , 114 N.W. 478 (1908); State v. Gates, 51 N.D. 695 , 200 N.W. 778 (1924). [4] No issue was raised as to the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain such a motion after the appeal had been taken. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bertram
green
2 sentences2006C [¶ 21] In his reply brief, Sevigny claims his trial lawyer’s failure to provide notice of an alibi defense amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶ 22] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be resolved in a post conviction proceeding “so the parties can fully develop a record on the issue of counsel’s performance and its impact on the defendant’s claim.” State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 39 , 708 N.W.2d 913 . 2006C [¶21] In his reply brief, Sevigny claims his trial lawyer’s failure to provide notice of an alibi defense amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶22] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be resolved in a post conviction proceeding “so the parties can fully develop a record on the issue of counsel’s performance and its impact on the defendant’s claim.” State v. Bertram , 2006 ND 10, ¶ 39 , 708 N.W.2d 913 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bertram
green
2 sentences2006C [¶ 21] In his reply brief, Sevigny claims his trial lawyer’s failure to provide notice of an alibi defense amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶ 22] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be resolved in a post conviction proceeding “so the parties can fully develop a record on the issue of counsel’s performance and its impact on the defendant’s claim.” State v. Bertram, 2006 ND 10, ¶ 39 , 708 N.W.2d 913 . 2006C [¶21] In his reply brief, Sevigny claims his trial lawyer’s failure to provide notice of an alibi defense amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. [¶22] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be resolved in a post conviction proceeding “so the parties can fully develop a record on the issue of counsel’s performance and its impact on the defendant’s claim.” State v. Bertram , 2006 ND 10, ¶ 39 , 708 N.W.2d 913 . | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Mesch v. Levi
neutral
1 sentence2018State v. Blackcloud , 2015 ND 108, ¶ 1 , 865 N.W.2d 124 . [¶3] Blackcloud applied for post-conviction relief in November 2016, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Blackcloud
neutral
1 sentence2018State v. Blackcloud , 2015 ND 108, ¶ 1 , 865 N.W.2d 124 . [¶3] Blackcloud applied for post-conviction relief in November 2016, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kalmio
green
2 sentences2017Id.; Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, ¶¶ 8, 15 , 722 N.W.2d 515 ; State v. Kalmio, 2014 ND 101, ¶ 41 , 846 N.W.2d 752 . 2017Id.; Sevigny, 2006 ND 211, ¶¶ 8, 15 , 722 N.W.2d 515 ; State v. Kalmio, 2014 ND 101, ¶ 41 , 846 N.W.2d 752 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McIver
green
1 sentence2001In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420,431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. McIver
green
1 sentence2001In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420,431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Peters
green
2 sentences2001In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420,431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972). 2001In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420,431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Skinner
green
2 sentences2001In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420,431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972). 2001In support he cites several cases in which our court considered alibi defenses in the context of jury instructions: State v. McIver, 257 Kan. 420,431 , 902 P.2d 982 (1995), State v. Peters, 232 Kan. 519, 520 , 656 P.2d 768 (1983), and State v. Skinner, 210 Kan. 354, 361 , 503 P.2d 168 (1972). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Statea v. Gates
neutral
2 sentences1980See State v. Nelson, 17 N.D. 13 , 114 N.W. 478 (1908); State v. Gates, 51 N.D. 695 , 200 N.W. 778 (1924). [4] No issue was raised as to the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain such a motion after the appeal had been taken. 1980See State v. Nelson, 17 N.D. 13 , 114 N.W. 478 (1908); State v. Gates, 51 N.D. 695 , 200 N.W. 778 (1924). [4] No issue was raised as to the trial court's jurisdiction to entertain such a motion after the appeal had been taken. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.