State v. Mora
North Dakota Supreme Court
1DissentMaring, Justice
[¶ 25] The majority concludes that, although the prosecution failed to properly allege the prior offenses as required by N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(5), any error was harmless under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a). Because harmless error analysis is inappropriate in this case, I respectfully dissent.
I
[¶ 26] Initially, I note my agreement with the majority’s conclusion that N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(5) clearly and unambiguously requires the prosecution to allege specific prior offenses in the information.
[¶ 27] Interpretation of a statute is a question of law which is fully reviewable upon appeal. State v.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- United States v. John Weaver, Thomas D. SikesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- William C. Kelly, III v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Scott Allen NolandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- United States v. Jesse Angel CevallosCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- United States v. Kennedy, Jimmie LeeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.