Source: https://www.ndcourts.gov/court/JP/Minutes/Jan1976.htm
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 06:54:38
Document Index: 82372620

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 27', '§ 31', '§ 14', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 29', '§ 31']

Joint Procedure Committee - January 29-30, 1976 Minutes
January 29-30, 1976
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m., January 29, 1976, by Justice Paul M. Sand, Chairman.
Honorable William F. Hodny
Honorable R. C. Heinley
Discussion was had relative to Article V, on privileges, whether the subject matter of that Article was within the proper scope of this committee's activities, or whether it was a legislative concern. It was the consensus of the committee that the rules in Article V should be studied by the committee and that the decision to submit them either to the Legislature or to the Supreme Court could be made at a later time.
Judge Burdick, who had been assigned Article V, read each Rule prior to its consideration, his analysis of each rule, and led the discussion.
Judge Hodny MOVED that § 31-01-03, NDCC, and any other sections relating specifically to the "dead man's statutes" be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. The motion was seconded by Justice Vogel. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick suggested that § 31-01-06.1, relating to privilege of school counselors, should not be disturbed, and the committee agreed.
Judge Burdick suggested that § 31-01-06.2, NDCC, relating to newsmen's privilege, should not be disturbed, and the committee agreed.
Judge Burdick read § 31-01-08, NDCC, relating to perjury. Judge Hodny MOVED that § 31-01-08 be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rolfson. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick read § 31-08-07, NDCC, relating to admission in evidence of statements taken by insurance adjusters. Judge Burdick MOVED that § 31-08-07, NDCC, be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pearce. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick recommended that § 27-20-29(4), NDCC, relating to juvenile delinquency hearings, be retained, and the committee agreed.
Judge Hodny MOVED that § 31-01-01, NDCC, relating to persons competent to testify as witnesses, be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rolfson. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Smith MOVED that § 14-02-05, NDCC, relating to privileged communications, be noted as having been considered and retained. The motion was seconded by Judge Hodny. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick moved the adoption of Rule 501.
(4) prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing
Mr. Rolfson MOVED that Rule 502 be amended as follows:
In line 8 place quotation marks around the phrase "representative of the client"; and in line 64 place a semicolon after the word "clients".
The motion was seconded by Judge Glaser.
Mr. Rolfson MOVED to amend Rule 502 by deleting subdivision (6), lines 65 through 71. The motion was seconded by Judge Glaser.
Mr. Rolfson, with the consent of Judge Glaser, withdrew his motion to amend Rule 502.
The question was on the motion of Mr. Rolfson to amend Rule 502. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt Rule 502, as amended.
(2) A "representative of the client" is one having authority to obtain professional legal services, or to act on advice rendered pursuant thereto, on behalf of the client.
(b) General rule of privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client (1) between himself or his representative and his lawyer or his lawyer's representative, (2) between his lawyer and the lawyer's representative, (3) by him or his representative or his lawyer or a representative of the lawyer to a lawyer or a representative of a lawyer representing another party in a pending action and concerning a matter of common interest therein, (4) between representatives of the client or between the client and a representative of the client, or (5) among lawyers and their representatives representing the same client.
(5) Joint clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between or among two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between or among any of the clients; or
The motion was seconded by Judge Glaser. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 503 be amended as follows:
In line 27 of the typewritten Rule insert a comma after the word "mental";
In line 28 after the word "himself," add the word "his";
In line 43, after the word "illness," add the words "including alcohol or drug addiction,".
The motion was seconded by Judge Smith. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 503, as amended, be adopted,
(b) General rule of privilege. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other
person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of his physical, mental, or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, among himself, his physician or psychotherapist, and persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient's family.
(1) Proceedings for hospitalization. There is no privilege under this rule for communications relevant to an issue in proceedings to hospitalize the patient for mental illness, including alcohol or drug addiction, if the psychotherapist in the course of diagnosis or treatment has determined that the patient is in need of hospitalization.
(3) Condition an element of claim or defense. There is no privilege under this rule as to a communication relevant to an issue of the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the patient in any proceeding in which he relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense or, after the patient's death, in any proceeding in which any party relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense.
Judge Burdick MOVED that § 31-01-06(3), NDCC, relating to the physician privilege, be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. Mr. Rolfson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 504 be adopted,
(d) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of (1) the other, (2) a child of either, (3) a person residing in the household of either, or (4) a third person committed in the course of committing a crime against any of them.
Judge Burdick MOVED that § 31-01-02, NDCC, relating to the husband-wife privilege, be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. Judge Hodny seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 505 be adopted,
and that § 31-01-06(2), NDCC, relating to the religious privilege, be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. Justice Vogel seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 506 be amended as follows:
In line 6 add a period after the word "illegally", and delete the remainder of that line, and lines 7 and 8,
and, when so amended, be adopted,
(b) Exceptions. This privilege does not apply if the court finds that the vote was cast illegally. (((or determines that the disclosure should be compelled pursuant to the election laws of the state.)))
The Committee adjourned to 9:00 a.m. on January 30, 1976.
The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. January 30, 1976, by Justice Paul Sand, Chairman.
The same persons were in attendance as at the previous meeting on January 29, 1976.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 507 be adopted,
A person has a privilege, which may be claimed by him or his agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to
prevent other persons from disclosing a trade secret owned by him, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. If disclosure is directed, the court shall take such protective measures as the interest of the holder of the privilege and of the parties and the interests of justice require.
Judge Burdick suggested that on Rule 508 we should have a well-written comment on those cases in which the government is a party and those on which the government is not a party.
Judge Burdick MOVED the adoption of Rule 508,
RULE 508. Secrets of State and Other official
Information; Governmental Privileges.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 509 be amended as follows:
On line 35 strike the words "requiring the prosecuting attorney to comply,"
Add subsection (3) of Rule 510, Federal Rules of Evidence, Deleted and Superseded Materials,
adopt Rule 509, as amended,
(2) Testimony on relevant issue. If it appears in the case that an informer may be able to give testimony relevant to any issue in a criminal case or to a fair determination of a material issue on the merits in a civil case to which a public entity is a party, and the informed public entity invokes the privilege, the court shall give the public entity an opportunity to show in camera facts relevant to determining whether the informer can, in fact, supply that testimony. The showing will ordinarily be in the form of affidavits, but the court may direct that testimony be taken if it finds that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily upon affidavit. If the court finds there is a reasonable probability that the informer can give the testimony, and the public entity elects not to disclose his identity, in criminal cases the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion shall grant appropriate relief, which may include one or more of the following: (((requiring the prosecuting attorney to comply,))) granting the defendant additional time or a continuance, relieving the defendant from making disclosures otherwise required of him, prohibiting the prosecuting attorney from introducing specified evidence, and dismissing charges. In civil cases, the court may make any order the interests of justice require. Evidence submitted to the court shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal, and the contents shall not otherwise
be revealed without consent of the informed public entity. All counsel and parties are permitted to be present at every stage of proceedings under this subdivision except a showing in camera at which no counsel or party shall be permitted to be present.
(3) Legality of obtaining evidence. If information from an informer is relied upon to establish the legality of the means by which evidence was obtained and the judge is not satisfied that the information was received from an informer reasonably believed to be reliable or credible, he may require the identity of the informer to be disclosed. The judge shall, on request of the government, direct that the disclosure be made in camera. All counsel and parties concerned with the issue of legality shall be permitted to be present at every stage of proceedings under this subdivision except a disclosure in camera, at which no counsel or party shall be permitted to be present. If disclosure of the identity of the informer is made in camera, the record thereof shall be sealed and preserved to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal, and the contents shall not otherwise be revealed without consent of the government.
and that the comments to this Rule should contain a clear explanation that in camera proceedings are of a highly confidential nature and are "for the eyes of the judge alone." Mr. Rolfson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick moved that Rule 510 be amended as follows:
In line 2 delete the words "these rules confer";
In line 3 after the word "disclosure" add the words "is conferred by rule or by law".
and adopt Rule 510, as amended,
A person upon whom (((these rules confer))) a privilege against disclosure is conferred by rule or by law waives the privilege if he or his predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. This rule does not apply if the disclosure itself is privileged.
Judge Burdick MOVED the adoption of Rule 511,
RULE 511. Privileged Matter Disclosed Under
Compulsion or Without Opportunity to Claim Privilege.
In connection with Rule 512, Judge Burdick read North Dakota Jury Instructions Nos. 1012 and 1309, and they were discussed.
Judge Burdick MOVED the adoption of Rule 512,
RULE 512. Comment Upon or Inference from Claim
of Privilege; Instruction.
It was recommended that the explanatory notes reflect that § 29-21-11, NDCC, was considered.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 605 be adopted,
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 606 be adopted, with subsection (b) to read as on page 4 of the Minutes of the October 1-2, 1975, meeting, with the further amendment that
the word "what" in the third line from the bottom be changed to "which,"
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, but a juror may testify on the questions whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention, whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or whether the verdict of the jury was arrived at by chance. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him concerning a matter about which he would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.
and that § 31-01-10, NDCC, be superseded by the Supreme Court or recommended to the Legislature for repeal. The motion was seconded by Justice Vogel. Motion CARRIED.
ARTICLE X - Contents of Writings, Recordings, and Photographs
Judge Glaser read each Rule prior to its consideration, and many of the commentaries, and led the discussion.
Judge Glaser MOVED the adoption of Rule 1001, with the addition of the word "sounds" after the word "words" on line 5. Judge Burdick seconded the motion.
Judge Burdick MOVED a substitute motion to amend subsection (1) of RULE 1001 to read:
Add the words "or other verbal communication" after the word "equivalent" in line 6.
This motion FAILED for lack of a second.
Mr. Pearce MOVED to adopt Rule 1001 as it appears in the draft,
(2). Photographs. "Photographs" include still photographs, X-ray films, video tapes, and motion pictures.
The motion was seconded by Judge Heinley. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Heinley MOVED to adopt Rule 1002,
To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided by these rules, by other rules adopted by the North Dakota Supreme Court, or by statute.
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 1003 be amended as follows:
In line 4 after the word "authenticity" add the words "or continuing effectiveness",
and when so amended that Rule 1003 be adopted,
Mr. Rolfson MOVED the adoption of Rule 1004,
Judge Burdick MOVED that Rule 1005 be amended as follows:
In line 8 delete the words "which complies" and insert the word "complying"
and when so amended that Rule 1005 be adopted,
The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy (((which complies))) complying with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt Rule 1006,
Rolfson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Glaser MOVED that Rule 1007 be amended as follows:
In line 2 delete the word "records" and insert the word "recordings"
and when so amended that Rule 1007 be adopted,
Contents of writings, (((records))) recordings, or photographs may be proved by the testimony or deposition of the party against whom offered or by his written admission, without accounting for the nonproduction of the original.
Judge Burdick moved that Rule 1008 be adopted,
Whenever the admissibility of other evidence of contents of writings, recordings, or photographs under these rules depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the question whether the condition has been fulfilled is ordinarily for the court to determine in accordance with the provisions of Rule 104. However, when an issue is raised whether (1) the asserted writing ever existed, (2) another writing, recording, or photograph produced at the trial is the original, or (3) other evidence of contents correctly reflects the contents, the issue is for the trier of fact to determine as in the case of other issues of fact.
and that the commentary include a statement that Items (1), (2), and (3) are not to be exclusive, but merely illustrative of the Rule. Judge Hodny seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Article VIII had been assigned to Justice Vogel. He read each Rule as it was considered, and led the discussion.
Justice Vogel MOVED the adoption of Rule 801 as in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Mr. Rolfson seconded the motion.
Judge Burdick made a substitute motion that Rule 801 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence be amended, as follows:
On lines 17, 18, and 19 delete the words "was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition".
Mr. Rolfson seconded the motion. Motion LOST.
Judge Burdick moved to amend Rule 801 as follows:
In line 16 change the word "and" to "but"
and when so amended to adopt Rule 801,
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (i) inconsistent with his testimony (((and))) but, if offered in a criminal proceeding, was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (ii) consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or
Justice Vogel MOVED to adopt Rule 802 as in the Federal Rules of Evidence, with the amendments suggested on page 7 of the Minutes of this Committee of October 1-2, 1975,
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules, by other rules adopted by the North Dakota Supreme Court, or by statute.
Justice Vogel MOVED to adopt Rule 803 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5), as read from the Federal Rules of Evidence,
RULE 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability
of Declarant Immaterial.
(4) Statements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the
cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
Justice Vogel MOVED to adopt Rules 803 (6) and (7), as in the Uniform Rules of Evidence,
Judge Burdick moved to adopt Rule 803(8), as in the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Mr. Rolfson seconded the motion. Motion LOST.
Justice Vogel moved to adopt Rule 803(8), as in the Federal Rules of Evidence,
Mr. Pearce seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Judge Burdick MOVED to adopt Rule 803 (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), (20), and (21), as in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
(10) Absence of public record or entry. To prove the absence of a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, or the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of a matter of which a record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form, was regularly made and preserved by a public
office or agency, evidence in the form of a certification in accordance with rule 902, or testimony, that diligent search failed to disclose the record, report, statement, or data compilation, or entry.
Justice Vogel MOVED to amend the State Bar Association version of Rule 803 (22), as follows:
Substitute the word "prosecution" for "Government";
After the word "appeal" add the words "or post-conviction proceeding"; Strike "(but not upon a plea of nolo contendere)"
and, when so amended, to adopt Rule 803(22),
(22) Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty ((((but not upon a plea of nolo contendere)))), adjudging a person guilty of a felony, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the (((Government))) prosecution in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The pendency of an appeal or post-conviction proceeding may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
and a cross-reference to Rule 609 should be shown in the explanatory notes. Mr. Rolfson seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED.
Justice Vogel MOVED the adoption of Rule 803(23),
Mr. Rolfson MOVED the adoption of Rule 803(24),
Justice Sand suggested that at the next meeting we finish Article VIII, and then put all the Rules on the agenda, commencing with Article I.
The next meeting of the Special Procedure Committee will be Thursday, March 25, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., and will continue through Friday, March 26.