LAW.coLAW.co

STATE v. LINDEMAN (2021)

Supreme Court of North Dakota.2021-12-09No. No. 20210159

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

[¶1] Barry Mervyn Lindeman appeals from a judgment of conviction for gross sexual imposition, arguing there was insufficient evidence the offense happened within the time period listed in the charging documents and jury instructions.

[¶2] “A precise date or time period is not required in a criminal prosecution unless time is an essential element of an offense.” Davies v. State, 2018 ND 211, ¶ 17, 917 N.W.2d 8. Time is not an element of gross sexual imposition. Id. at ¶ 20. Because Lindemans only argument pertains to the timeline and this Court has held a precise time period is not required, we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7). Per Curiam.

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte