conferring standing when litigants "have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action" and the harm must not be a generalized grievance shared by all or a large class of citizens
How later courts described this case
- conferring standing when litigants "have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action" and the harm must not be a generalized grievance shared by all or a large class of citizens
- "While indigency is not a `suspect classification' at the present time, we believe that the combination of the classification based upon wealth and the vital interests of [an individual] at stake in a criminal prosecution require an intermediate standard of review."
- parties generally must assert their own legal rights and interests and cannot rest their claims on the legal rights and interests of third parties
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
This case was dismissed upon motion, so the question of how to properly instruct the *112 jury on burden of proof so as to protect Carpenter’s rights has never been confronted. From the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order for Judgment and the Memorandum Opinion, it appears that the trial court assumed that unconstitutional instructions would have to be given. The majority opinion apparently assumes the same. I agree that Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), would have to be kept in mind.
The heavy artillery required for a successful attack on the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature is missing from this case. See So. Valley Grain Dealers v. Bd. of Cty. Com’rs of Richland County, 257 N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D.1977).
The dismissal ought to be set aside and the case remanded so that Carpenter can be given a fair trial with his rights under the federal and state constitutions protected.