Court Opinion

ID: 9698845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:01:16.415976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.021373
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the decision to conditionally release the defendant pending appeal. However, in so doing, I believe we should acknowledge that when a motion for release pending appeal has been denied by the trial court and a subsequent motion for release pending appeal is made to this court the standard we apply is not one of “abuse of discretion” by the trial court but rather a “de novo” review. The majority opinion refers to the “abuse of discretion” standard and notes our decision in State v. Larson, 271 N.W.2d 1 (N.D.1978). In that case the trial court failed to state the reasons why *61Larson should not be released pending his appeal, as required by the rules, and we remanded to afford Larson an opportunity to submit to the trial court such evidence as he deemed pertinent. However, we also stated:
“If compelling reasons justifying release are presented to a trial court, it is an abuse of discretion to deny release. Rules 9, NDRAppP, and 46, NDRCrimP, contemplate that a defendant may be able to carry, in a presentation to this court, the burden of proving that conditions justify release, even though he was not able to do so in an application to the trial court.” 271 N.W.2d at 2.
If this court considers matters not presented to the trial court we cannot apply an “abuse of discretion” standard.
In this instance Lesmeister did present reasons why he should be released. The trial court also stated the reasons why he should not be released. Those reasons, as outlined in the majority opinion, are sufficient for me to determine that Lesmeister should be released pending appeal. Those reasons ' are not, however, so compelling that I would conclude the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to release Lesmeis-ter pending appeal. We should not rely upon the “abuse of discretion” standard when we determine not to release a defendant pending appeal and give mere lip service to the standard when we decide to release a defendant pending appeal.