Court Opinion

ID: 9700035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:07:13.696804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:03.106727
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Judge
(concurring specially).
I agree that the order of the trial court denying a new trial in this case should be affirmed. There are, however, some things said in the opinion in this case and in the opinion in State v. Prince, N.D., 66 N.W.2d 796, which give, me some concern. While in neither of these cases do we hold explicitly that a motion for a new trial of any action must be made during the time the action is pending, such a result would seem to follow a fair interpretation of the language used.
Prior to the enactment of Chapter 207* Laws of N.D. 1951, a motion for a new-trial was required to be made before the time for appeal from the judgment had elapsed, except in capital cases wherein the motion might be made at any time before execution. Chapter 207, supra, re*343pealed this section, with the result that there is no longer any statutory limitation upon the time within which a motion for new trial must be made.
I think it a fair conclusion that, by its repeal, the legislature intended to remove the fixed limitation of time that had previously existed and likewise did not intend that we, by judicial interpretation, should substitute another fixed limitation upon such time.
It seems to me that the proper rule to adopt, where no limitation by rule or statute exists, is that a motion for a new trial should be made within a reasonable time, depending upon the grounds urged and all of the circumstances of the case. This appears to be the rule most widely approved. 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 124, p. 341.