Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of two counts of gross sexual imposition, one a class AA felony and one a class A felony. During jury deliberations, the jury requested to review a recorded interview that was part of the evidence. Because there was no device available for the jury to listen to the recording in the jury room, the district court decided to play the recording in the courtroom. The court then closed the courtroom to the public during this process, reasoning that the jury’s review of evidence constituted deliberations, which required exclusion of the public.The District Court of Dunn County, Southwest Judicial District, presided over the trial and made the decision to close the courtroom. The defendant did not object to the closure at trial but did ask the court to consider whether reviewing evidence was truly deliberation. The court performed a Waller v. Georgia analysis and found that an overriding interest justified closure, and both parties agreed the findings were adequate for the record. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a 20-year term, with 10 years suspended, and the sentences to run concurrently.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the closure of the courtroom during the jury’s review of evidence violated the defendant’s right to a public trial. The court held that the district court erred by treating the jury’s review of evidence as deliberations requiring closure. The Supreme Court found this was a plain and obvious error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, constituting a structural error. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the closure of the courtroom under these circumstances violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial. View "State v. Barrett" on Justia Law

The plaintiff received medical care at Sanford medical facilities in Fargo, North Dakota, in April 2022. He alleged that Sanford and its staff, including nurse Shannon Mulinex, refused to provide him pain medication, verbally abused and humiliated him, failed to investigate his complaints, engaged in a pattern of hostile conduct, and discharged him against his wishes. Based on these events, he brought six claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), as well as claims for general negligence, defamation, discrimination, and violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, reviewed the case after Sanford moved for summary judgment. Sanford argued that the plaintiff failed to serve an expert affidavit within three months as required by North Dakota law for professional negligence claims, and that the IIED claims did not allege conduct sufficiently extreme and outrageous. The district court denied the plaintiff’s oral motion for a continuance, finding he had received adequate notice of the hearing. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that several IIED claims required an expert affidavit and the remaining IIED claims did not meet the legal threshold for extreme and outrageous conduct. A supplemental order granted summary judgment to Mulinex for the same reasons.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s amended judgment. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, that the plaintiff had not preserved the issue of additional discovery for appeal, and that the requirement for an expert affidavit applied to IIED claims involving medical decisions. The court further held that the conduct alleged in the remaining IIED claims did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of law. The amended judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "McMahon v. Sanford" on Justia Law

A defendant was arrested following a report of sexual misconduct and charged with four counts of gross sexual imposition involving a minor. The victim testified that the defendant’s sexual contact began when she was six years old and continued regularly from 2013 to 2016. The victim’s mother testified that the defendant admitted to an instance of sexual contact in 2013, and the victim’s brother corroborated that the victim disclosed the abuse to him, which he later reported to a school counselor. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the victim and her family members testified about the frequency and nature of the abuse.The District Court of Burke County, North Central Judicial District, presided over the trial. During jury deliberations, the jury requested to review an audio recording, which was replayed in open court due to the lack of a clean computer for use in the jury room. After the recording was played, the defendant’s attorney moved for a mistrial, alleging that the victim’s mother made audible noises in the courtroom that could have influenced the jury. The court denied the motion, noting that neither the judge, the State, nor defense counsel (apart from the defendant’s own observation) noticed any such noises. The jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts, and each juror affirmed that the presence of others in the courtroom did not affect their verdicts.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. The court held that the victim’s testimony, even without specific instances for each year, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court also found no actual prejudice from the alleged courtroom noises and concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Watterud" on Justia Law

Carrie Cotton was charged in four separate cases with multiple class A misdemeanor offenses, including stalking, harassment, and violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. The charges stemmed from her alleged harassment of her ex-boyfriend, T.B., and his acquaintances, H.C., B.C., and T.C., including sending numerous messages from various phone numbers and fake social media accounts. Despite a restraining order, Cotton continued to contact the victims with explicit and vulgar messages. She entered Alford pleas of guilty to all charges.The District Court of Foster County, Southeast Judicial District, presided by Judge James D. Hovey, sentenced Cotton to consecutive prison terms of 360 days on four separate counts, each relating to different victims and incidents. The court also imposed suspended terms of imprisonment on the remaining counts and ordered two years of probation. Cotton appealed, arguing that the consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses violated North Dakota’s statutory prohibition against such sentencing, claiming her actions constituted a single course of conduct.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that an exception to the general rule against consecutive sentences for misdemeanors applied because each offense was committed as part of a different course of conduct, involving distinct acts against different victims on different dates. The court found that similarity in method and motive did not render the offenses part of the same course of conduct. The court also rejected Cotton’s argument that the district court failed to make necessary factual findings, concluding that the facts were undisputed and the legal standard was met. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgments, holding that the consecutive sentences were lawful under the statutory exception. View "State v. Cotton" on Justia Law

Joseph Miller was charged in two separate criminal cases with aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order (DVPO). In one case, the charge for violating a DVPO was amended from a felony to a misdemeanor after a prior violation was dismissed. Miller entered an Alford plea to aggravated assault and pled guilty to the amended misdemeanor DVPO violation and a felony DVPO violation in the second case. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration and probation, with some time suspended and conditions including electronic monitoring and participation in sobriety and anger management programs.The District Court of Nelson County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over Miller’s cases. After Miller failed to comply with probation conditions—including repeated alcohol violations and failure to complete required programs—the State petitioned to revoke his probation. At the revocation hearing, Miller admitted to the remaining alleged violations. The district court found Miller violated probation, revoked it, and resentenced him. However, the court did not orally pronounce a new sentence for the misdemeanor DVPO violation in one case, and the amended judgment classified it as a felony, contrary to the earlier amendment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed Miller’s appeal, applying a two-step analysis for probation revocation: reviewing factual findings for clear error and the revocation decision for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court’s findings of probation violations were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, and that revocation and incarceration were not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the revocation and sentence in the felony DVPO case, affirmed the findings and sentence for aggravated assault, but reversed and remanded for proper sentencing on the misdemeanor DVPO violation, as the sentence in the amended judgment was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

A defendant was convicted by a jury in 2018 on two felony counts of gross sexual imposition involving the seven-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. The prosecution’s case included the child’s testimony, a video of her forensic interview, statements from her mother and babysitter, and evidence of the defendant’s conduct and statements before and after the alleged incident. The State also introduced evidence of the defendant’s internet searches for incest-related pornography, which was not referenced in closing arguments and comprised a small portion of the trial record.On direct appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the defendant’s counsel had failed to object to the admission of the internet search evidence under North Dakota Rule of Evidence 404(b), and thus forfeited the issue. The defendant then sought postconviction relief in the District Court of Burleigh County, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the Rule 404(b) evidence and for not arguing obvious error on appeal. The district court granted relief, finding counsel’s performance deficient under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington and concluding, with minimal explanation, that the defendant was prejudiced under the second prong.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in finding counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. However, the Supreme Court found the district court’s analysis of prejudice insufficient, as it did not assess the impact of counsel’s errors in the context of the remaining evidence and the overall trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of deficient performance, reversed the finding of prejudice, and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to supplement the record if possible and conduct the required prejudice analysis under Strickland. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple felonies and a misdemeanor after breaking into an airport hangar, causing over $1 million in property damage to the hangar, an airplane, and vehicles, and stealing an ATV. He had a significant criminal history, including prior convictions for theft, burglary, and other offenses. He entered an open guilty plea to all charges. The district court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 51 years in prison, 3 years of probation, and ordered restitution of $306,400, reflecting damages not covered by insurance.After sentencing, the defendant filed a motion under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, arguing his sentence was illegal and seeking leniency. The District Court of Pierce County partially granted the motion, finding the sentence was not illegal but reducing the total imprisonment to 30 years as an act of leniency. The defendant appealed from the order denying further relief and from the amended judgment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as the sentence was within statutory limits and justified by the gravity of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. The court also found no violation of statutory law regarding mandatory minimum sentences, as none of the offenses required such minimums and the consecutive sentences were authorized by law. The court declined to address additional arguments regarding judicial conduct and equal protection, finding they were not adequately raised or supported. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s order and the amended judgment. View "State v. Wallette" on Justia Law

The defendant was originally convicted after pleading guilty to several offenses, including aggravated assault, terrorizing, felonious restraint, child neglect, and domestic violence. He was sentenced to jail time and placed on probation for two years, with conditions that included abstaining from drugs and alcohol and not violating any laws. The State later petitioned to revoke his probation, alleging that he had used controlled substances, been charged with new crimes, and pled guilty to additional offenses.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, held a probation revocation hearing. During the hearing, the defendant indicated he had applied for counsel but had not received a response. The court offered to continue the hearing and provide another application for counsel, especially after the State indicated it would recommend a significant sentence. The defendant, however, repeatedly stated he wished to proceed without counsel, and the court confirmed multiple times that he understood his right to counsel and was waiving it voluntarily. The State withdrew one allegation, and the defendant admitted to the remaining two. The court found he violated probation and resentenced him to five years, with certain sentences to run concurrently and others consecutively.On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant argued that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at the revocation hearing. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel at a probation revocation hearing in North Dakota arises from a rule of criminal procedure, not the Constitution, and that the district court’s finding of a knowing and intelligent waiver was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s amended criminal judgment revoking probation and resentencing the defendant. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of September 17, 2024, police responded to a report that a man had drawn a knife and approached a woman in her vehicle at a Fargo gas station. Surveillance video captured the incident, and Shawn King was apprehended near the scene. He was charged with terrorizing, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia, though the drug paraphernalia charge was dismissed before trial. At trial, the victim testified that King approached her on a bicycle, threw it down, brandished a knife, and advanced toward her in an angry manner, causing her to fear for her safety. The jury viewed the surveillance footage and heard testimony from three officers. Ultimately, the jury found King guilty of terrorizing but acquitted him of carrying a concealed weapon.Following the jury’s verdict, the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, entered judgment and sentenced King to five years, with four years to be served and one year suspended during two years of supervised probation. King appealed, arguing that the terrorizing statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to his conduct, and that the combination of the terrorizing and concealed weapon statutes violated his right to lawfully carry a weapon. He did not raise these constitutional arguments in the district court.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed King’s claims for obvious error, as they were not preserved below. The court held that King failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious deviation from current law regarding the constitutionality of the statutes as applied to him. The court found that the terrorizing statute incorporates both subjective and objective standards, and that King’s overbreadth and Second Amendment arguments did not establish plain error. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were in a long-term relationship and had two children together. During the relationship, the mother was a stay-at-home caregiver while the father was the sole wage earner. After their separation, the father initiated legal proceedings to determine residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support. The mother and children moved out in April 2024. The parties agreed on most issues, including that the mother would have primary residential responsibility and the father would pay $2,885 per month in child support. However, disputes remained regarding the effective date of the child support obligation and whether the father should receive credit for $9,150 in payments he made for the children’s needs after the separation but before the final judgment.The District Court of Stark County resolved the remaining issues based on written submissions. It set the child support obligation to begin on April 1, 2024, but denied the father credit for the $9,150 in voluntary payments. The court justified this by noting the father’s higher income and its discretion to set the commencement date for support. The father appealed, challenging only the refusal to credit his voluntary payments.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and held that, as a matter of law, a district court must credit voluntary child support payments made by the obligor during the pendency of the action when calculating past-due support. The court clarified that its prior decision in Richter v. Houser, 1999 ND 147, 598 N.W.2d 193, established this rule and that failure to provide such credit results in impermissible double recovery. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to reduce the father’s past-due child support obligation by $9,150. View "Sutherby v. Astanina" on Justia Law