State of North Dakota v. Nathaneil Tekie Solomon

Fargo, North Dakota, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with f gross sexual imposition and contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of a minor.



In February 2024, Solomon was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class A felony, and contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of a minor, a class A misdemeanor. In March 2024, a preliminary hearing and arraignment were held, during which Solomon pleaded not guilty and requested a speedy trial. The parties attempted to schedule the trial date at the hearing, but struggled to find a date without a prior scheduling conflict. Solomon's counsel requested that the trial be a "date certain." The district court acknowledged that a later date would be more than 90 days after Solomon's invocation of his speedy trial right but found good cause to extend because of the "schedules of the parties."



* * *



Legal issue Did the district court err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS. The case examines whether a defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial was violated when the trial was scheduled beyond the 90-day window due to scheduling conflicts, and the court found good cause for the delay under N.D.C.C. § 29-19-02.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. BARKER FACTORS. The court addressed the defendant's claim of error in applying the Barker factors to determine prejudice from the trial delay, ultimately affirming no substantial prejudice was demonstrated.



EVIDENCE. BURDEN OF PROOF. The judgment discusses the appellant's unsupported allegations challenging the record regarding scheduling conflicts, highlighting the importance of substantiating claims related to trial delays.



Key Phrases Criminal judgment. Speedy trial violation. Gross sexual imposition. Good cause delay. Pretrial incarceration.

Affirmed