Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Omar TOURE, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2017-11-16
Citations: 903 N.W.2d 290
Docket Number: Nos. 20170038-20170040
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Omar TOURE, Defendant and Appellant
Judges: [¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 903
Pages: 290–291

Head Matter:
2017 ND 258
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Omar TOURE, Defendant and Appellant
Nos. 20170038-20170040
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed 11/16/2017
Nathan K. Madden,. Assistant State’s Attorney; Williston, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.. ■
■ Laura C. Ringsak, Bismarck, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶ 1] Omar Toure appeals from criminal judgments entered after a jury found him guilty of, reckless endangerment, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and two counts of terrorizing. Toure argues the guilty ver- diets are not supported by sufficient evidence. We , summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P, 35.1(a)(3).
[¶ 2] Toure also argues the district court's decision denying the motion to dismiss is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence because his right to a speedy trial was violated, Toure did not assert his right to a speedy trial until more than a year after being charged. The district court found the reasons for delay in trial included a change in attorney due to the conflict Toure had with his first court-appointed counsel, the difficulty in finding legally certified Wolof interpreters requested by Toure, the anticipated five-day trial needed due to the use of interpreters, and scheduling considerations based on the district court's busy docket. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7), concluding the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous because they are supported by the evidence and. Toure's right to a speedy trial was not violated. State v. Owens, 2015 ND 68, ¶ 10, 860 N.W.2d 817 (concluding the defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial where demand for a speedy trial was made but reasons for delay were precipitated by the defendant's own actions and reasonable considerations for scheduling a five-day jury trial).
[¶ 3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.
Lisa Fair McEvers
Daniel J. Crothers
Jerod E. Tufte
Jon J. Jensen