Court Opinion

ID: 9701355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:16:47.160293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:22.782178
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
This case was dismissed upon motion, so the question of how to properly instruct the *112jury on burden of proof so as to protect Carpenter’s rights has never been confronted. From the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and the Memorandum Opinion, it appears that the trial court assumed that unconstitutional instructions would have to be given. The majority opinion apparently assumes the same. I agree that Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), would have to be kept in mind.
The heavy artillery required for a successful attack on the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature is missing from this case. See So. Valley Grain Dealers v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs of Richland County, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977).
The dismissal ought to be set aside and the case remanded so that Carpenter can be given a fair trial with his rights under the federal and state constitutions protected.