State v. Hagen, 5059.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | BURR |
| Citation | 54 N.D. 136,208 N.W. 947 |
| Parties | STATE v. HAGEN. |
| Docket Number | No. 5059.,5059. |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1926 |
STATE
v.
HAGEN.
No. 5059.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
May 3, 1926.
The provisions of section 10917 of the Compiled Laws 1913, are exclusive in their nature, and, the loss of the stenographic notes of the testimony taken at the trial of the case not being specified as a ground for a new trial, a new trial cannot be granted because of such loss.
The district court has no power to entertain a motion for a new trial made after the time for appeal has elapsed. An appeal from the judgment and a motion for a new trial are independent remedies, and the taking of an appeal does not extend the time within which the motion for the new trial must be made.
Appeal from District Court, Grand Forks County; W. J. Kneeshaw, Judge.
Halvor J. Hagen was convicted of receiving deposits in an insolvent bank, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Usher L. Burdick, of Fargo, for appellant.
Geo. F. Shafer, Atty. Gen., and George A. Bangs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
BURR, District Judge.
This is an appeal from the order of the district court denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Briefly, the facts necessary for a determination of the issues involved are as follows:
[1] The defendant was found guilty of receiving deposits in an insolvent bank, and on June 2, 1924, judgment was pronounced. On the same day an appeal was taken, and, as no statement of the case was settled, the state made a motion in this court, on May 5, 1925, to dismiss the appeal. Defendant appeared on said motion in opposition thereto, and urged that on or about February 2, 1925, the stenographic notes of the testimony, taken by the court reporter at the time of the
[208 N.W. 948]
trial, had been stolen, after about two-thirds had been transcribed, and at the same time moved this court for a new trial because of the loss of these notes. This court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal as well as the motion for the new trial; the order being entered on or about June 14, 1925. On July 8, 1925, the defendant served notice of this motion for a new trial in the district court, setting forth, as grounds for the new trial, among other things:
“That the defendant asks for a new trial solely upon the ground that the transcript of the evidence is necessary from which to make a statement of the case and specifications of error, and that by reason of the loss of the same the defendant has been precluded from perfecting his appeal. The defendant does not make this application for a new trial resting strictly upon the statutory grounds mentioned in section 10917, Compiled Laws of North Dakota, but asserts that in addition to said grounds therein mentioned the rule has been laid down in criminal cases in this state by inference, and in others having similar statutes by direct decisions; that the loss of the stenographic notes, through no fault of the defendant or his attorneys, is held to be a ground for a new trial in addition to the grounds specified by statute.”
Other portions of the motion are either amplifications of this paragraph or explanatory of the same.
The district court denied this motion for a new trial on July 14, 1925, and in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gibson
... 69 N.D. 70 284 N.W. 209 STATE v. GIBSON. Supreme Court of North Dakota. Cr. 132. Aug. 31, 1938. Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1939. . [284 N.W. 211] On Petition for Rehearing. Syllabus by the Court. 1. Following State v. Hagen, 54 N.D. 136, 208 N.W. 947, it is held : “the district court has no power to entertain a motion for a new trial made after the time for appeal has elapsed. An appeal from the judgment and a motion for a new trial are independent remedies, and the taking of an appeal does not extend the time ......
-
State ex rel. Shafer v. Lowe
...... Second Judicial District, sitting in their stead. . . . OPINION . [210 N.W. 502] . . [54. N.D. 639] PUGH, Dist. J. . . In. November, 1923, a grand jury of Cass county found a true bill. against one Halvor J. Hagen, charging him with a felony, to. wit: of knowingly receiving deposits in an insolvent bank in. violation of §§ 5175 and 5176, Comp. Laws 1913. He. was accordingly indicted and upon arraignment pleaded not. guilty thereto. The venue of the action was changed to Grand. Forks county. The cause ......
-
State ex rel. Shafer v. Lowe
......Gen., and George A. Bangs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Wm. Lemke and Usher L. Burdick, both of Fargo, for defendant. [210 N.W. 502] PUGH, District Judge. In November, 1923, a grand jury of Cass county found a true bill against one Halvor J. Hagen, charging him with a felony, to wit, of knowingly receiving deposits in an insolvent bank in violation of sections 5175 and 5176, C. L. 1913. He was accordingly indicted, and upon arraignment pleaded not guilty thereto. The venue of the action was changed to Grand Forks county. The cause came on ......
-
State v. McClelland
......An appeal from the judgment was taken by serving and filing a notice of appeal within proper time. The motion for a new trial was not brought on for hearing until in July. This court has passed on the question under consideration in several cases. In State v. Hagen, 54 N.D. 136, 208 N.W. 947, it is held that a motion for a new trial and an appeal from a judgment are separate remedies and that the taking of an appeal does not extend the time within which a motion for new trial must be made. This rule was followed in State v. Gibson, 69 N.D. 70, 284 N.W. 209. ......