Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Conrad Calvin Ziegler was charged with criminal mischief and stalking based on his actions toward a couple who were witnesses against him in a separate domestic violence case. The couple reported that Ziegler repeatedly drove around their block, made threatening statements, and later, bags of human feces began appearing in their yard. Security cameras captured vehicles similar to Ziegler's near the couple's property. Additionally, Ziegler was recorded vandalizing one of the victim's vehicles, causing significant damage.The District Court of McHenry County, Northeast Judicial District, presided over the case. During the trial, the court admitted testimony and exhibits related to the valuation of damages to the victim's vehicle over Ziegler's hearsay objections. The jury convicted Ziegler of both charges, and the court entered an amended judgment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. Ziegler argued that the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to support his stalking conviction. The Supreme Court held that while the insurer's offer letters were inadmissible hearsay, the error was harmless because the victim's testimony regarding the vehicle's damage was properly admitted under the property owner rule. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the stalking conviction, noting Ziegler's repeated acts of harassment and intimidation directed at the couple.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the amended criminal judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "State v. Ziegler" on Justia Law

Artur Skobodzinski was driving a commercial vehicle when he was stopped by a North Dakota Highway Patrol trooper for a safety inspection. The trooper detected an odor of alcohol and observed that Skobodzinski had bloodshot eyes. Skobodzinski denied recent alcohol consumption and refused field sobriety tests. He also refused an on-site screening test and a chemical breath test, leading to his arrest for driving under the influence. Skobodzinski requested to speak with an attorney but was only allowed to do so over an hour later at the law enforcement center.The Department of Transportation held an administrative hearing and found that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test and had a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney. Consequently, his driving privileges were revoked for 180 days. The district court affirmed this decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the hearing officer did not err in finding that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test. However, the court found that the hearing officer erred in determining that Skobodzinski was given a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney. The court noted that the trooper could have allowed Skobodzinski to contact an attorney immediately after his request, rather than delaying it until they reached the law enforcement center. The court emphasized that the trooper's delay deprived Skobodzinski of a meaningful opportunity to consult with an attorney and potentially cure his refusal to take the chemical test.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and the hearing officer’s decision, thereby reinstating Skobodzinski’s driving privileges. View "Skobodzinski v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Brent Burton was charged with domestic violence, a class B misdemeanor, after a 911 call was made from his residence reporting an assault. The call was purportedly made by Burton's wife, who described being grabbed and slapped by Burton. The State filed a notice of intent to use the 911 call recording as evidence, supported by a certificate of authenticity from the records custodian of Central Dakota Communications. Burton pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.At the jury trial, the State was unable to locate or subpoena Burton's wife. Burton objected to the introduction of the 911 call recording, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. The district court admitted the recording, finding it addressed an ongoing emergency. The jury found Burton guilty, and the court sentenced him accordingly.Burton appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing the admission of the 911 call violated his Sixth Amendment rights and that the recording was improperly authenticated and contained inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and concluded the 911 call was nontestimonial, as its primary purpose was to address an ongoing emergency. The court also found sufficient circumstantial evidence to authenticate the call and determined it fell under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the admission of the 911 call did not violate Burton's constitutional rights and that the recording was properly authenticated and admissible under the hearsay exceptions. View "State v. Burton" on Justia Law

Steven Holte and Sheldon Holte, as co-trustees of the Kermit and Ardella Family Mineral Trust, along with Ardella Holte, filed a lawsuit against Tiah E. Rigby, both individually and as the personal representative of Nathan Holte's estate. The case arose from Nathan Holte's misappropriation of trust income during his tenure as trustee. After Nathan's death, Rigby became the life beneficiary of Nathan's share of the trust income. The Holtes sought to offset Rigby's distribution to recoup the misappropriated funds.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, ruled that the co-trustees could offset Rigby's distribution to recover the misappropriated trust income but could not offset her distribution to recoup non-trust money that Nathan had stolen from Ardella's personal accounts. Rigby appealed, arguing that she should not be held liable for her father's misdeeds, while the Holtes cross-appealed, seeking to offset Rigby's distribution further.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the co-trustees could not withhold Rigby's distribution to recoup the misappropriated trust income, as Rigby had no personal liability for Nathan's actions, and her beneficial interest vested upon Nathan's death. The court emphasized that the trust agreement required monthly distributions to life beneficiaries and that Nathan's life interest terminated upon his death, making it improper to offset against Rigby's distribution.The court also affirmed the lower court's decision that the co-trustees could not offset Rigby's distribution to recover the non-trust money stolen by Nathan, as Rigby was not involved in the theft and had no personal liability. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Holte v. Rigby" on Justia Law

Kyle Zittleman and ShanaLea Bibler were married in 2010 and had one child in 2012. They divorced in 2016, with a Wyoming court granting Zittleman primary residential responsibility. Bibler filed motions to modify residential responsibility and child support in 2018 and 2020, but Zittleman retained primary responsibility. Zittleman moved to North Dakota in 2019, and Bibler followed in 2022. In 2023, Bibler again moved to modify residential responsibility, citing her relocation, Zittleman’s alleged non-compliance with a judgment, and the child's worsening demeanor.The Morton County district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2024, limiting each party to two and a half hours for their case. Bibler used all her time before cross-examining two witnesses and argued this violated her due process rights. The district court found no material change in circumstances and denied her motion. Bibler appealed, claiming the time limitation and the court's findings were erroneous.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for constitutional claims and under an abuse of discretion standard for procedural matters. The court found that the district court did not violate due process by limiting the hearing time, as both parties were notified and did not object or request additional time. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the time limitation.The Supreme Court upheld the district court's finding that there was no material change in circumstances. The court noted that Bibler's move to North Dakota, Zittleman’s adherence to the judgment, and allegations of alienation did not constitute a material change. The court also found that the district court did not err in omitting a best interests analysis, as it was not required without a material change in circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Bibler's motion to modify residential responsibility. View "Zittleman v. Bibler" on Justia Law

Sarah Shively initiated divorce proceedings against Kyle Shively, seeking primary residential responsibility for their three school-age children. The marital home, which was Kyle's family farmstead, is located in Pleasant Lake, North Dakota. During the separation, Kyle moved to Rugby, North Dakota. Both parties proposed different parenting plans, with Sarah seeking primary residential responsibility and Kyle seeking either primary or equal residential responsibility.The District Court of Benson County, Northeast Judicial District, held a two-day bench trial and awarded Sarah primary residential responsibility and the marital home. Kyle appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decisions regarding residential responsibility, parenting time, and the distribution of the marital home.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court failed to provide sufficient specificity in its findings to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the district court's findings, particularly regarding the best interest factors for awarding primary residential responsibility. The district court's findings were contradictory, and it did not adequately explain why equal residential responsibility was not considered.Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not address summer parenting time for Kyle, despite acknowledging its importance. The district court also failed to explain its decision to award the marital home to Sarah, despite the sentimental value and origin of the property being significant factors.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the court’s decisions regarding primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and property distribution. View "Shively v. Shively" on Justia Law

Scott Neil Krebs was charged with driving under the influence. After a jury found him guilty, Krebs renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The district court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District, granted Krebs' motion, setting aside the jury's guilty verdict and entering a judgment of acquittal.The State of North Dakota appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the court's order should be considered an "order quashing an information" under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1), which would allow the State to appeal. Alternatively, the State petitioned for a supervisory writ to vacate the judgment of acquittal and reinstate the jury's verdict.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the district court's decision was a true judgment of acquittal because it resolved a factual element of the offense, specifically the sufficiency of the evidence to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the State could not appeal the judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.Additionally, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, noting that such authority is discretionary and reserved for extraordinary cases where no adequate alternative exists. The court found that this case did not present extraordinary circumstances justifying supervisory intervention, as Krebs had timely renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the district court had the authority to grant it. The court emphasized that routinely granting writs in similar situations would undermine the strict limitations on appeals by the State. View "State v. Krebs" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) issued a notice ending benefits for Russell C. Jones, who had been receiving them due to a work-related injury in Mountrail County. The matter proceeded to a telephonic hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) with participants in different locations: the ALJ in Minnesota, Jones in Wisconsin, Jones’s attorney in Bismarck, and WSI’s attorney in Fargo. The ALJ left the record open for a physician to provide deposition testimony from Bismarck and ultimately reversed WSI’s decision. WSI then filed a notice of appeal with the district court in Burleigh County.The district court in Burleigh County dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with Jones’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction because he did not reside there and his injury did not occur there. WSI appealed this dismissal.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and determined that the district court in Burleigh County had jurisdiction under the default rules set out by the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. The court found that since part of the administrative hearing was held in Bismarck, the district court in Burleigh County was an appropriate venue for the appeal. The court concluded that Title 65 of the North Dakota Century Code did not specify where WSI must appeal, and thus the default provisions of N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32 applied. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Jones" on Justia Law

Said Ali was charged with eight counts of possession of certain prohibited materials, specifically videos containing sexual conduct by a minor. Before the trial, Ali filed a motion in limine to exclude the videos and related witness testimony, arguing they were inadmissible under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. The district court denied this motion. Subsequently, Ali, his attorney, and the State signed a stipulation for conditional guilty pleas, intending to reserve Ali's right to appeal the court's ruling on the motion in limine. Ali pled guilty to all eight counts, and a criminal judgment was entered.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Theodore T. Sandberg, handled the initial proceedings. After the denial of the motion in limine, Ali entered his guilty pleas, which were intended to be conditional based on the stipulation signed by the parties. However, the criminal judgment did not specify that the pleas were conditional, and no transcript of the change of plea hearing was provided to confirm the conditional nature of the pleas.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that Rule 11(a)(2) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for conditional guilty pleas if specified in writing and accepted by the court. However, the judgment did not indicate that Ali's pleas were conditional, and there was no transcript to support this claim. Consequently, the court concluded that Ali failed to preserve the issue for appeal because the record did not reflect that his guilty pleas were conditional. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment, holding that Ali did not demonstrate that he entered conditional guilty pleas, thus the underlying issue was not preserved for review. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

Sarah Knell and Catlin Kinden, who married in 2003 and have four children, divorced in October 2020. They initially agreed to share equal residential responsibility for their children, with the children spending most of the school year with Knell. Conflicts arose, particularly regarding the medical care of their two minor children, B.K. and P.K., who require medication. Kinden meticulously monitored P.K.'s diabetes care, often initiating conflicts with Knell over it. In July 2021, Kinden moved to modify residential responsibility, alleging Knell's disregard for the children's health. The district court ordered mediation, which was unsuccessful.In December 2021, Knell filed a countermotion to modify residential responsibility. The parties agreed to a parenting investigation, which did not recommend changing their equal residential responsibility. They signed a stipulation to modify the judgment, which the court adopted in September 2022. In 2023, Kinden moved to Bismarck, prompting Knell to seek primary residential responsibility, arguing that the two-year moratorium on modifications did not apply due to Kinden's relocation. Both parties made prima facie cases for modification, leading to an evidentiary hearing in July 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming the district court's decision. The court found that N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, which governs modifications of primary residential responsibility, did not apply as there was no prior order establishing primary residential responsibility. Instead, the court made an original determination based on the best interests of the children, weighing the factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). The court concluded that awarding Kinden primary residential responsibility was in the children's best interests, particularly due to his diligence in addressing their medical and educational needs. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's findings and affirmed the second amended judgment. View "Kinden v. Kinden" on Justia Law