Court Opinion

ID: 9672903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:02:38.572866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.118724
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion appears to say that “abuse of discretion” is the standard which we apply in reviewing a trial court denial of a petition for appointed counsel and costs under Rule 44, NDRCrimP. It further appears to say that, in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Although I agree with both of those premises, they lead me to a conclusion opposite to that reached by the majority.
I do not think that Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure redefines rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor under Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution. Certainly it does not amend Rule 44, NDRCrimP.
The majority opinion requires Wells County to become a lending agency and invest in lands far beyond its borders, far beyond the borders of North Dakota, and far beyond the borders of the United States. Although there may be exceptions which authorize ownership of land by a governmental entity outside its borders (such as for garbage disposal), there is no exception broad enough to cover this case.
The precedent established by the majority opinion will effectively require every county to finance the defense of every criminal case. I don’t think we are quite ready for that.