Court Opinion

ID: 9685534
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:45:56.871791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.435928
License: Public Domain

NEUMANN, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result. I am uncomfortable, however, with that part of the majority opinion which reactivates the admittedly long-standing rule that a criminal defendant who has made a motion for a new trial is limited on appeal to a review of the grounds presented in that motion. In support of that position, the majority cites cases decided in 1915, 1927, and the 1930’s. In 1913 a criminal defendant had one year in which to bring *884his appeal. C.L.1913, § 10994. In 1925 that was changed to six months, and in 1943, after the last of these cases was decided, it was still three months. R.C.1943, § 29-2808. Today, a defendant must file his notice of appeal or his motion for new trial within ten days. N.D.R.Crim.P.Rule 37(b)(1); N.D.R.App.P.Rule 4(b)(1).
Under the practice prior to this opinion, filing a notice of appeal within ten days, while burdensome, has at least been possible, because the notice of appeal need not contain specifications of error. N.D.R.Crim.P. Rule 37(c). I fear, however, that the majority opinion will effectively eliminate motions for new trials in criminal cases, because defense counsel will be reluctant to limit their client’s appeal only to those grounds which occur to them within ten days, without the benefit of research, reflection, and a review of the record.
The majority opinion seems particularly unfair when the State, which normally finds itself appealing from single issues such as an order to suppress, is afforded thirty days within which to file its notice of appeal. N.D.R.Crim.P.Rule 37(b)(2); N.D.R.App. P.Rule 4(b)(2).
Based on the foregoing, I would reach Jordheim’s argument regarding probable cause for arrest. I would, however, still affirm. I believe the record reflects more than enough evidence to support a finding of probable cause.
LEVINE, J., concurs.