Court Opinion

ID: 9860733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:31:10.316036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:34.775005
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
concurring specialty-
Because controlling issues have not been raised, it is impossible for this court, in this original proceeding, to do anything other than that proposed by Justice Vande Walle.
*858Section 31-01-06.2, NDCC, is ambiguous, and all of the extrinsic evidence presented fails to disclose a legislative intent that is not absurd. If the statute was intended to provide an impenetrable shield controlled entirely by, and at the whim of, the Grand Forks Herald, it is useless and absurd. If, on the other hand, it was intended to authorize a judge to make a finding based on the absence of evidence, it is equally absurd.
The legislature should either require an in camera disclosure whenever the shield is claimed, or eliminate the requirement that the judge make a finding.