Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Mora

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 2000No. 990377Published

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

  1. United States v. John Weaver, Thomas D. SikesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
  2. William C. Kelly, III v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  3. United States v. Scott Allen NolandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  4. United States v. Jesse Angel CevallosCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
  5. United States v. Kennedy, Jimmie LeeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API