Spring 2017 Spring 2017 Gavel-low res | Page 19

for the late alibi notice because the proposed alibi witness was the defendant ’ s own child who was sitting with her in a parked car at the time of the alleged theft . Therefore , the identity of the proposed alibi witness would have been known to the defendant since the day she allegedly committed the crime . Hence , the Supreme Court could find no good cause or justification for disclosure of this witness , just two weeks before trial , when the offense had been committed eight months earlier .
O ’ Hara v . Schneider , 2017 ND 53
This case involved an appeal of a District Court Order denying the mother ’ s motion to modify the father ’ s parenting time from unsupervised to supervised . Evidence at the District Court level established that the father committed domestic violence upon the mother . As with an original award of primary residential responsibility , the Supreme Court stated that in a modification proceeding , the domestic violence factor involves a statutory presumption that makes it distinct from the other statutory factors under N . D . C . C . § 14-09-06.2 and further , sets forth a presumption that the violent parent may not be awarded residential responsibility , as well as a presumption that a violent parent , who does not have primary residential responsibility , will only be allowed supervised parenting time . As with an original award of primary residential responsibility , the violent parent must present clear and convincing evidence that the non-violent parent is an unfit parent to have custody of the children . In other words , the domestic violence factor is the dominant “ best interest factor ” in cases involving domestic violence , and a trial court cannot treat the violence presumption as simply another factor in determining parenting time . The Supreme Court also stated that it is immaterial that the domestic violence was committed by one parent against the other , but not upon the child . The lack of violence toward the child does not rebut the domestic violence presumption . The Court stated that the Legislature intended that courts presume any domestic violence negatively impacts the best interests of the children and that children are harmed emotionally , as well as often physically , when they are around perpetrators of domestic violence . To do otherwise , the Court said , would be to not take seriously the domestic violence that exists in families .
State v . Romanick , 2017 ND 42
the circumstances of the case , it was appropriate to exercise their discretionary supervisory authority to review the District Court ’ s decision . On review , the Supreme Court determined that , while the date of an alleged offense is important for applying a statute of limitations for example , in this case , the incorrect date alleged in the complaint , and the date of the proposed amendment , were both within the two year statute of limitations and , therefore , the date was not an essential element of the charges . Thus the date identified in the original complaint could only be characterized as a clerical mistake . The Supreme Court stated that the District Court misapplied the law in determining that the date was an essential element of the charges and that the defendant would be subjected to substantial prejudice if the amendment was permitted . Concluding that the District Court misapplied the law for amendments to criminal complaints , the Supreme Court directed the District Court to grant the State ’ s motion to amend the complaint in order to state the correct date of the alleged offense .

# EIDELIKE

I ’ D LIKE EDISCOVERY MANAGEMENT THAT SIMPLIFIES THE PROCESS
A county sheriff was charged with three Class A Misdemeanors alleging inadequate care of a jail inmate . Seven days before the scheduled jury trial , the State moved to amend its complaint to allege the offenses occurred in 2014 , claiming the amendment was necessary to correct a clerical mistake . In denying the motion , the District Court concluded the amendment would substantially prejudice the defendant Sheriff ’ s rights by broadening or changing the charges against him because time was an essential element of the offense . On petition for a supervisory writ , the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that , under
Today ’ s data rich environment calls for better eDiscovery Management solutions . We offer computer forensic investigative expertise combined with a cost-effective data processing protocol .
701.239.8513 www . forensics . eidebailly . com
SPRING 2017 19