Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Joshua Ryan TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2019-06-27
Citations: 929 N.W.2d 95
Docket Number: No. 20190005
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Joshua Ryan TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 929
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Joshua Ryan TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20190005
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
Filed June 27, 2019
Casey W. Moen, Assistant State's Attorney, Wahpeton, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.
Joshua R. Taylor, self-represented, Wahpeton, N.D., defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
[¶1] Joshua Taylor appeals from a district court order denying his motion for a new trial. He argues the district court erred in determining he failed to establish (a) the failure to learn about the evidence at the time of trial was not the result of the defendant's lack of diligence and (b) the weight and quality of the newly discovered evidence would likely have resulted in an acquittal. See State v. Atkins , 2019 ND 145, ¶ 17, 928 N.W.2d 441. Taylor argues that after his trial he discovered evidence that would have impeached the State's only witness on a collateral issue. Essentially, Taylor argues that if he had had this evidence to impeach the officer, the jury would have disbelieved other aspects of the officer's testimony and returned an acquittal. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Jerod E. Tufte
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jon J. Jensen