Court Opinion

ID: 9613912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:20:50.509002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:33.099713
License: Public Domain

MR. B. W. THOMAS, District Judge,
sitting in for a vacancy, dissenting.
I dissent. While the interpretation placed on Section 93-2104 by the majority of the Court is a reasonable one, I believe that it is clearly at odds with the interpretation adopted in Sikorski, on which Court and counsel below were entitled to rely. Contrary to the statement in the majority opinion that “Defendant Fransen argues that he should have received Section 93-2104, R.C.M.1947 notice before the District Court set the matter for trial”, counsel for that defendant has conceded that such notice was not required under the Sikorski ruling. The real issue here is whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying the motions to vacate the judgment and for a new trial. While there are reasons to disagree with that decision, the record also shows circumstances sufficient to justify it. I would find no abuse of discretion and would affirm.