A precise time period is not required in a criminal prosecution unless time is an essential element of an offense. Time is not an essential element of gross sexual imposition.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2024
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Barry Mervyn Lindeman, Defendant and Appellant
No. 20210159
Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Douglas L. Mattson, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Christopher W. Nelson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and
appellee; submitted on brief.
Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted
on brief.
State v. Lindeman
No. 20210159
Per Curiam.
[¶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,
. Time is not an element of gross sexual imposition. Id.
at ¶ 20. Because Lindeman’s 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).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
Gerald W. VandeWalle
Daniel J. Crothers
Lisa Fair McEvers
Jerod E. Tufte
1
