M E M O
TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM: Gerhard Raedeke
RE: Amendments Effective March 1, 1999
The Joint Procedure Committee's 1998 "annual rules package" was adopted by the Supreme Court, effective March 1, 1999. The Court did, however, make substantive changes to several of the amendments, reject one of the proposals, and adopt two amendments on its own motion. This memo describes the additions and changes made by the Supreme Court.
In Rule 43, N.D.R.Civ.P., the Court added language to the rule clarifying testimony must be taken orally unless a witness is unable to reasonably communicate orally.
The Court rejected the Committee's proposed amendment to Rule 77, N.D.R.Civ.P. The Committee's proposal provided:
"The time for filing a post-judgment motion or an appeal does not begin to run until notice of entry is served, regardless whether there is actual knowledge judgment has been entered."
Instead the Court substituted the following language:
"Service of notice of entry of judgment is not necessary to begin the time for filing a post-judgment motion or an appeal if the record clearly evidences actual knowledge of entry of judgment through the affirmative action of the moving or appealing party."
The Court was concerned about the time for appeal extending indefinitely if notice of entry of judgment is not served.
The Court made changes to proposed Rule 32, N.D.R.Crim.P. As proposed by the Committee, the rule did not allow the parties to read or copy the presentence investigation report except as permitted by the court in its discretion. The Court changed the language to provide the parties may not copy the report except as permitted by the court in its discretion. The change creates a presumption that the defendant is entitled to inspect the report by only prohibiting the parties from copying the report.
The Court added a provision to the Explanatory Note to Rule 32.1, N.D.R.Crim.P. As proposed, the Explanatory Note provided:
"An order deferring imposition of sentence is not a judgment."
The Court added the following additional sentence:
"However, for purpose of appeal, an order deferring imposition of sentence is equivalent to a judgment under Rule 32(b), N.D.R.Crim.P."
In Form 8, "Order Deferring Imposition of Sentence," N.D.R.Crim.P., the Court added a provision explaining the alternative language for automatic dismissal is intended for orders deferring imposition of sentence for an infraction or a misdemeanor.
The rule governing oaths, Rule 6.10, N.D.R.Ct., was adopted with Chief Justice VandeWalle and Justice Neumann dissenting.
On its own motion, the Court amended Rule 10 and 31, N.D.R.App.P. The amendment to Rule 10 extends the requirement for filing a computer diskette of the transcript to an appeal from an administrative agency. The amendment to Rule 31 requires a copy of each brief to be filed on a computer diskette unless the filing party certifies the brief was not prepared on a computer.