State v. Thorson

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kardor

    2015 N.D. 196 (N.D. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    The Brady rule does not apply to evidence the defendant could have obtained with reasonable diligence; a defendant's failure to discover evidence as a result of a lack of diligence defeats a Brady claim that the prosecution withheld such evidence. State v. Thorson, 2003 ND 76, ¶ 13, 660 N.W.2d 581. Moreover, Brady evidence must be plainly exculpatory and require no inference.

  2. State v. Horn

    2014 N.D. 230 (N.D. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    However, Horn must show prejudice in order to be entitled to relief for a Rule 16 violation. See State v. Thorson, 2003 ND 76, ¶ 12, 660 N.W.2d 581. [¶ 6] Horn argues he was denied a substantial right because the State violated Rule 16 by failing to disclose the actual name of one of its witnesses.

  3. State v. Muhle

    2007 N.D. 132 (N.D. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    Applying obvious error analysis on direct appeal where a defendant had not properly preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct at trial

    [¶ 22] In criminal cases, discovery is governed by N.D.R.Crim.P. 16. State v. Longhead, 2007 ND 16, ¶ 17, 726 N.W.2d 859. "Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16, the prosecution must disclose, upon the defendant's request, statements of the defendant, the defendant's previous record, documents and objects, any reports of examinations and tests, and any information concerning expert witnesses within the prosecution's possession, custody, or control." Id.; see also State v. Thorson, 2003 ND 76, ¶ 10, 660 N.W.2d 581. [¶ 23] While not a constitutional mandate, Rule 16 is designed to further the interests of fairness.

  4. State v. Loughead

    2007 N.D. 16 (N.D. 2007)   Cited 17 times

    Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16, the prosecution must disclose, upon the defendant's request, statements of the defendant, the defendant's previous record, documents and objects, any reports of examinations and tests, and information concerning expert witnesses within the prosecution's possession, custody, or control. See State v. Thorson, 2003 ND 76, ¶ 10, 660 N.W.2d 581; N.D.R.Crim.P. 16. Rule 16 is "not a constitutional mandate, and is designed to further the interests of fairness."

  5. State v. Charette

    687 N.W.2d 484 (N.D. 2004)   Cited 8 times
    Applying Rule 16 prior to its amendment, effective March 1, 2006

    "Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16, the prosecution must disclose, upon the defendant's request, names and statements of witnesses the prosecution intends to call and also the relevant statements within the prosecution's possession or control of other persons." State v. Thorson, 2003 ND 76, ¶ 10, 660 N.W.2d 581; see N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(f)(1). Rule 16 is a discovery rule, not a constitutional mandate, designed to further the interests of fairness. State v. Ensminger, 542 N.W.2d 722, 723 (N.D. 1996). Although the trial court may impose sanctions for a failure to comply with Rule 16, including prohibiting the delinquent party from introducing into evidence the material not disclosed under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2), before the issue of sanctions becomes relevant there must be a threshold determination that Rule 16 was violated.

  6. State v. Beciraj

    2003 N.D. 173 (N.D. 2003)   Cited 14 times

    Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b), however, "obvious errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." State v. Thorson, 2003 ND 76, * 9, 660 N.W.2d 581. The defendant has the burden of establishing obvious error.