State v. Silkman, 10095
| Decision Date | 18 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 10095,10095 |
| Citation | 317 N.W.2d 124 |
| Parties | STATE of North Dakota, Appellee, v. Craig SILKMAN, Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Owen K. Mehrer, State's Atty., Dickinson, for appellee; submitted on brief.
Craig Silkman, pro se.
Silkman seeks appellate review of a district court order denying his request for a jury trial in a non-criminal traffic case. The State urged for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the order of the district court lacked finality and was, therefore, non-appealable.
Silkman was charged with driving 95 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour speed zone. Pursuant to Sec. 39-06.1-03, NDCC, he appeared for an administrative hearing on this matter. The administrative determination was adverse to Silkman and he then appealed to the Stark County District Court, where he demanded a jury trial pursuant to Sec. 39-06.1-03(5)(a), NDCC. The State moved to deny the jury trial and the motion was granted. Silkman then applied to a succeeding district judge for a rehearing. When that application was denied, Silkman appealed to this court.
Section 39-06.1-03(5)(a), NDCC, states in part:
Silkman contends that this statute grants him the right to a jury trial upon request. In situations where a statute is susceptible to two different meanings, it is the duty of the courts to determine the legislative intent. See, McCrosky v. Cass County, 303 N.W.2d 330 (N.D.1981). The legislative history strongly supports Silkman's argument.
Although we agree with Silkman's argument on the jury question and assume that he will now be given a jury trial, 1 the denial of a jury trial is not appealable. In most cases tried in a district court, denial of jury trial may be claimed as error when there is an appeal from the judgment. See United Hospital v. Hagen, 285 N.W.2d 586 (N.D.1979). We must emphasize, however, that no appeal will lie from a judgment of the district court, with or without a jury, in a non-criminal traffic case. See Sec. 39-06.1-03(5)(a), NDCC.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs are allowed to either party.
I agree with the opinion and concur in the result but I do not agree with footnote...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Rambousek
-
City of Grand Forks v. Riemers
...not be appealed to this court." Id.; see also Bland v. Commission on Med. Competency, 557 N.W.2d 379, 384 (N.D.1996); State v. Silkman, 317 N.W.2d 124, 125 (N.D.1982). [¶ 7] The municipal court found that Riemers had violated the municipal ordinance. Riemers then invoked the appellate juris......
-
State v. Grenz, Cr. N
...several pages interpreting it. A statute is ambiguous when it is susceptible of different, yet reasonable, meanings. State v. Silkman, 317 N.W.2d 124 (N.D.1982); Apple Creek Township v. City of Bismarck, 271 N.W.2d 583 (N.D.1978). I believe that the State and the defendant each posit a diff......
-
Bland v. Commission on Medical Competency
...the North Dakota Supreme Court from the appeal process." State v. Walch, 499 N.W.2d 602, 603 (N.D.1993) 1; see also State v. Silkman, 317 N.W.2d 124, 125 (N.D.1982) ("no appeal will lie from a judgment of the district court, with or without a jury, in a non-criminal traffic case"). When the......