Circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of punishment must be presented by testimony
of witnesses examined in open court, except when a witness is so sick or infirm as to be unable
to attend, that witness's deposition may be taken by a magistrate of the county out of court, at a
specified time and place, upon such notice to the adverse party as the court may direct, the
criminal record of the defendant furnished by the federal bureau of investigation or the state
superintendent of criminal identification and reports of the state parole office may be received by
the court without verification or other foundation, and, results of psychological testing and
psychiatric examination, certified in writing, may be received by the court without verification or
other foundation, subject to such inspection and confrontation of witnesses as the court may
permit or require in the interests of justice.\n\n Page No. 2
29-26-19. Other evidence prohibited.
Superseded by N.D.R.Crim.P., Rule 32.
\n
Notes of Decisions
State v. Wishnatsky, 491 N.W.2d 733 (N.D. 1992).
· cites it 16× “2 During sentencing, the court referred to a newspaper article in which Wishnatsky was reported to have made a statement from which it could be implied that he would not cease from protesting at clinics where abortions were performed.”
State v. Coutts, 609 P.2d 642 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 2× “1962), the North Dakota Supreme Court, interpreting N.D. Cent. Code § 29-26-18 , which is similar to I.”
State v. Dumont, 507 A.2d 164 (Me. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code § 1204 (West 1982); N.D.Cent.Code § 29-26-18 (1974); Okla.Stat.”
Application of Stone, 171 N.W.2d 119 (N.D. 1969).
· cites it 3× “Stone’s fourth argument is based upon § 29-26-18, N.D.C.C. which provides that all evidence in aggravation or mitigation of punishment must be presented by testimony of witnesses examined in open court.”
Coppage v. State, 2013 ND 10 (N.D. 2013).
“Schweitzer argued the trial court erred by finding the tear gas gun was a dangerous weapon “without the aid of any ‘qualified testimony’ as to its dangerousness which [Schweitzer] contends is required by § 29-26-18, N.D.C.C.” Schweitzer , at 614.”
State v. Schweitzer, 510 N.W.2d 612 (N.D. 1994).
“” Schweitzer asserts that the trial court erred in finding that the tear gas gun was a dangerous weapon without the aid of any “qualified testimony” as to its dangerousness which he contends is required by § 29-26-18, N.D.C.C. We reject this argument.”
State v. Willms, 117 N.W.2d 84 (N.D. 1962).
· cites it 2× “Section 29-26-18 of the North Dakota Century Code provides, in part: “Circumstances in aggravation or mitigation of punishment must be presented by testimony of witnesses examined in open court, * * The statute then excepts from this rule the criminal record of the defendant…”
State v. Vetter, 826 N.W.2d 334 (N.D. 2013).
“Schweitzer argued the trial court erred by finding the tear gas gun was a dangerous weapon “without the aid of any ‘qualified testimony’ as to its dangerousness which [Schweitzer] contends is required by § 29-26-18, N.D.C.C.” Schweitzer , at 614.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.