Legal Opinion

City of Dickinson v. Lindstrom

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1998No. Criminal 970168PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARING, Justice.

[¶ 1] Cody Lindstrom appeals from a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, in violation of section 39-08-01, N.D.C.C. We conclude section 29-17-46, N.D.C.C., limits the trial court’s discretion with regard to the order in which peremptory challenges may be exercised. We further conclude that although the trial court’s method of permitting “banking” of peremptories was error, reversal is not mandated in this case because the peremptory challenges were actually exercised by the parties in a manner consistent with Rule 24(b), N.D.R.Crim.P., and section 29-17-46,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Ross v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Pointer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. United States v. Johnnie T. WarrenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
  5. State v. PurdyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. LindellWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Nesvig v. NesvigNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State v. EntziNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2000
  4. City of Grand Forks v. RamstadNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2003
  5. State v. BarthNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2001

7 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