*1 the summary judgment, clearly powers the ma- The law delineates peal from the jority powers the unwarranted and dis- the the of the Su- has made trial court and Court, puted of fact as follows: finding preme Supreme The Court. “_we power the trial as a fact usurping was no duty conclude there finder, Sheridan, problems creates untold LaMoure, the Piehls because intersection, litigants as it unneces- by encourages controlled and numerous an unreason- If is to stop represent sary appeals. Supreme did not sign, dangerous pru- condition to grant novo, able risk or de the law should trial using the lawfully dent road.” individuals do so. changed Until limit it- happens, Supreme Court must finding by of fact made the ma- Another appel- self functions vested with an to the is jority as follows: late and trust court review “_however, that the inter- function as triers of fact. courts to section, stop it was controlled as sign, dangerous unusually was not a exercising condition to a driver
hazardous within and the lim-
ordinary care
its of law.” Court, in a continuation Supreme trend, again acting
an is once unauthorized finding
as a trier The fact of fact. function Supreme not with the Court in vested of North novo has been abolished in civil trial de longer cases. this trend should no
engaged in. found facts in majority RUMMEL, 1)
dispute support position as follows: sign adequate that the warn- stop was an Cr. No. 857. 2) ing; stop properly sign located; 3) that the intersection was not a North Dakota. Court of Supreme situation; dangerous 4) that fence as dangerous traveling public barrier to the dangerous
could not be forseen as care; 5) ordinary
exercise that DeLair care; 6) not ordinary
did exercise that De- 7) highway unlawfully;
Lair used the
that no exist in the engineering defects planning
construction and of the intersec-
tion. Walter Piehl and Hattie
Defendants
Piehl, landowners, adjacent as also owe a
duty traveling DeLair public and the exist
to not allow a condition to unsafe,
renders travel conceded point opinion. Piehls majority Whether respect
were or not is an negligent
issue of fact. The Court cannot Supreme
make determination and find a fact agree
that the I negligent. Piehls
with the Pederson who dissent Justice
holds that the action Piehls summarily.
cannot disposed
65 Freed, Dynes, Buresh, Reichert & Dickin- son, for appellant; defendant and argued Reichert, by Ronald A. Dickinson. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal by the Rummel, Conviction, a Judgment from 1982, April 8, dated County Stark of Increased Jurisdiction. We re- verse and remand for a new trial. appeal
On Rummel raises one issue: not, Whether or under the facts this day delay 119 between the selec- jury tion of the and the commencement trial denied Rummel’s to an “impartial Sixth Amend- jury” ment to the United States Constitution I, and the Due Process Clause of Article 12, of the North Dakota Constitu- tion?
Rummel was while liquor under the of intoxicating influence violation of Section N.D.C.C. On 20, 1981, September Rummel plead not guilty requested per- 12 sons hear the him. The 1981, 10, selected November which time Rummel exercised all of his peremptory challenges. By virtue cir- no way cumstances which were in attributa- the trial did not Rummel commence 1982, days until March after the jury had selected.
Approximately one week before the trial before commenced Rummel made motion requesting the trial court that he be al- voir lowed conduct additional dire jurors and also requesting selected addition- challenges. grant- al The court peremptory request ed the for additional voir dire but request perempto- denied additional dire, challenges. During the second voir ry day of the March conducted on the 1982, it was discovered at least other had sat as been select- DWI ed as for Rummel’s trial. On Fox, John J. Atty., Asst. States and Owen ground Rummel moved to strike those nine Mehrer, K. Atty., Dickinson, cause, States jurors for but his was denied plaintiff and argued J. by John case appellee; proceeded the trial court. The Fox, Atty., Asst. State’s guilty, Dickinson. Rummel was found and he appeal then filed this from his bias if that has served on a conviction. trial at which another was charged the same law or statu- We believe that Subsection tory provision dispositive appeal this person’s alleged of whether or not that vio- requires a reversal of conviction: *3 lation involved the same event or incident constituting im- upon .charges challenge A im- plied specified. bias for based. juror for all may taken causes, any following pro- or If it were the intent to vide which a upon other: a more limited basis
juror could be struck under Subsection 29-
17-36(5), N.D.C.C.,
ex-
it could have clearly
5.
served on a trial
which
pressed
by including language
that
intent
person
has tried another
for the of-
juror may
provi-
be struck under the
charged;
fense
...”1
only
sion
if the other
at which the
Upon construing
foregoing provision
on
sat,
juror
involved the same
challenged
face,
there
two
its
are
reasona-
upon
event or
which the defend-
incident
interpretations
of it. One is that a
charges were based.
ant’s
juror
may
ground
be struck
cause
juror
of
bias if the
has served as a
implied
rule of
It is a well-settled
juror
charged
on the trial
another
parts
all
of a statute
construction that
with
violation as the defendant
the same
together. We believe
should be construed
involving the same event
incident.
or
that
under Section
two other subdivisions
pro-
second reasonable
N.D.C.C.,
29-17-36,
support our construc
juror may
vision is that a
be struck for
tion of Subsection
juror
justice.”
ed the same law or
cause on
not the
event or incident
another
promoting
C.C.,
Title 29 of the North
are
ant’s
to be
all
has
Pursuant
alleged
person charged
provisions
“liberally
In State v.
served as a
ground
were based.
objects
violation involved the
to
upon
construed with a view to
statutory provision
Mees,
and in furtherance
Dakota
juror
which the defend-
proceedings
jury panel years.” within two provides
Because Subsection 9 for the strik-
ing that has served as member
of the jury panel within two it years,
reasonable to construe the in-
tent under Subsection to the strik- ing that has served North same statutory law or provision as the irrespective of whether or not the violation JENKINS, involves the same event Fred or incident scope broad does Cr. No. support a strict construction of Subsection North Supreme Court of Dakota. giving very limited or scope, narrow supports but instead our Subsection 5 as scope. more broad
We hold that Subsection
N.D.C.C., permits for cause on
serves on a has tried anoth-
er law provision as for which defend-
ant charged,
whether or not the other person’s charge