Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In December 2024, Colton Kenneth Defoe was stopped by a McKenzie County Sheriff’s officer due to an outstanding warrant. The officer cleared Defoe’s vehicle of other passengers and used a K-9 unit to inspect the car, which resulted in an alert for narcotics. A search revealed a plastic baggie and a bindle, both containing methamphetamine residue, and a plastic tube with burn marks. Although Defoe and his passengers denied possession, lab tests confirmed methamphetamine in both the baggie and the bindle, while the tube yielded inconclusive results. No gabapentin was detected, contrary to initial suspicions.Defoe was charged in the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, with possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension. Two additional charges were dismissed before trial. The jury found Defoe guilty on all counts, and the district court entered judgment. Defoe appealed, arguing improper jury instructions deprived him of due process and that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. He did not object to the jury instructions at trial but argued the issue in his Rule 29 motion for acquittal, which was denied.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. It held that Defoe had not preserved any challenge to the jury instructions for appellate review, as he failed to object distinctly and specifically as required under N.D.R.Crim.P. 30(c). The Court also found no plain error in the instructions, concluding they accurately stated the law and did not mislead the jury. Additionally, the Court determined that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdicts. The criminal judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Defoe" on Justia Law

A divorced couple with two minor children disputed the terms of parenting time after the mother was awarded primary residential responsibility and the father was granted reasonable visitation. Following the father’s return to Fargo, visitation resumed on an every-other-weekend daytime schedule. In 2024, the father moved for contempt, alleging violations of the parenting plan. The mother responded, seeking to modify parenting time and require the father to undergo psychological evaluation. After hearings, the District Court denied the contempt motion, ordered the evaluation, and imposed a stepped parenting plan beginning with supervised visits.The father appealed, and the Supreme Court of North Dakota previously affirmed the contempt denial, the evaluation requirement, and the decision to modify parenting time, but reversed the stepped plan due to improper delegation of authority to therapists without defined standards. The case was remanded for creation of a court-supervised plan. On remand, the District Court denied the father’s motions for reassignment and parent-child communication, maintained existing findings, and revised the parenting plan to ensure the court retained decision-making authority over parenting time transitions, with therapists limited to recommending rather than approving progression.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal from the amended judgment, holding that the District Court complied with the mandate by removing improper delegation to therapists and reserving approval for the court. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing, determined the revised parenting plan included sufficient standards and endpoints, and rejected renewed challenges to findings previously affirmed. The amended judgment was affirmed, and the mother was awarded double costs and $1,000 in attorney’s fees for the father’s frivolous challenge to previously resolved findings. View "Boyda v. Boyda" on Justia Law

A couple who were not married but had been in a long-term relationship petitioned to jointly adopt a young child. One petitioner was the child’s maternal grandmother, and the child’s biological parents had both consented to the adoption, relinquishing their parental rights. The couple had cared for the child since infancy, and the only obstacle identified by the district court to granting the adoption was the couple’s unmarried status.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, faced uncertainty regarding whether North Dakota law permitted two unmarried adults to jointly adopt a child. The court found no reason to deny the adoption except for the unresolved legal question of eligibility under the applicable statute. The district court noted inconsistent rulings among other district courts on this issue and certified the legal question to the North Dakota Supreme Court, staying the underlying adoption proceeding pending resolution.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the certified question. It interpreted section 14-15-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, concluding that the statute authorizes joint adoptions only by a “husband and wife together” and not by two unmarried adults. The court reasoned that the selective use of the term “together” for married couples, and its absence elsewhere in the statute, indicated legislative intent to exclude unmarried couples from joint adoption. The court declined to expand the statute’s meaning, emphasizing that such policy decisions rest with the legislature. The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that North Dakota law does not permit two unmarried adults to jointly adopt a child. View "Adoption of T.J.W.-H." on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault after an incident in downtown Fargo, where the victim sustained serious injuries, including facial fractures and lacerations. Security footage captured the assault, and the defendant was later found wearing clothing matching the assailant in the video. The victim did not testify, but had signed a medical authorization allowing disclosure of certain health information to the police. At trial, the State called a physician to testify about the victim’s injuries. The defense did not object to the introduction of medical testimony or records, and explicitly agreed that such evidence would be admissible, provided it did not identify the defendant as the assailant. During opening statements, the prosecutor made remarks inviting jurors to imagine themselves in the victim’s position.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, admitted the physician’s testimony regarding the victim’s injuries, over no objection from the defense, and allowed the medical authorization into evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, the defendant argued that the district court erred by compelling the physician’s testimony in violation of the physician-patient privilege, and that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by making a “golden rule” argument during opening statements. The Supreme Court held that the physician-patient privilege belongs exclusively to the patient, not the defendant, so the defendant could not assert it to exclude the physician’s testimony. The court also concluded that, although the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, the lack of a timely objection and the context of the case meant there was no obvious error requiring reversal. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the conviction. View "State v. Rockefeller" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child, involving at least twenty acts against a minor between November 2019 and August 2020. Sentenced in March 2022, he appealed his conviction, which was affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court in November 2022. In March 2023, he filed his first postconviction relief petition, which was denied by the District Court of Ward County and affirmed on appeal in March 2024. On April 29, 2025, the petitioner filed a second postconviction relief petition, alleging constitutional violations based on alleged withholding of evidence and false testimony by the State, citing Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025).After the State answered the petition—raising the statute of limitations, res judicata, and misuse of process as affirmative defenses—it moved for summary disposition on the basis of misuse of process but omitted the statute of limitations in its motion. The district court, however, ordered briefing on the statute of limitations and the impact of Glossip. Neither party scheduled a hearing, and the court ultimately granted summary disposition and dismissed the petition as untimely.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. It held that the State preserved the statute of limitations defense by raising it in its answer, and the district court could properly consider that defense even though it was not included in the State’s summary disposition motion. The Court determined that the petitioner forfeited his hearing request by failing to schedule it, and that the district court provided adequate notice and opportunity to respond regarding the statute of limitations issue. The Court found the petitioner failed to show that his claim fell within an exception to the statute of limitations for a new interpretation of law. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the petition. View "Archambault v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiff entered into an oral lease agreement with the defendant for the rental of a dump trailer for seven days at a flat rate. During the lease period, the plaintiff was arrested while using the trailer, and the trailer was impounded by law enforcement. The defendant retrieved the trailer from the impound lot before the lease term ended. The plaintiff was released from custody before the lease expired and alleged that the defendant breached the contract by repossessing the trailer early and converted his property contained in the trailer, which he claimed to be valuable.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Muddy Boyz Drywall LLC, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The court concluded there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged breach of contract and conversion. After procedural steps involving the dismissal of counterclaims and certification under Rule 54(b), the plaintiff appealed the certified judgment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the terms of the oral contract, whether its conditions were breached, whether the defendant’s performance was rendered impossible, and whether the plaintiff suffered damages. The Court also found that the plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged a conversion claim and that factual disputes existed regarding ownership, value, and the defendant’s disposal of the plaintiff’s property. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall" on Justia Law

The defendant, a sergeant in the North Dakota National Guard, was charged with gross sexual imposition and sexual assault after allegations that he had sexual contact with two subordinate soldiers during a hotel party following a unit training. The prosecution alleged that he touched one woman’s breasts and vagina without consent and had sexual intercourse with another woman who was so intoxicated that she was unaware of her surroundings. The incidents were said to have occurred while the two women were in a vulnerable state due to alcohol consumption.In the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the case proceeded to a jury trial. During jury selection, the State used seven peremptory challenges, all against male potential jurors. The defense objected, claiming gender discrimination. The prosecution provided non-gender-based reasons for each challenge, citing jurors’ attitudes toward feminism, the MeToo movement, prior criminal history, profession, and willingness to serve. The court found no purposeful discrimination and denied the objection. During opening statements, the defense objected to a statement by the prosecutor as alleged misconduct, arguing it referenced inadmissible prior bad acts; the court found no violation of its pretrial order and denied a motion for mistrial. After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for acquittal for insufficient evidence, which the court denied. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty on both counts.On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether the State’s peremptory challenges were discriminatory, whether the prosecutor’s opening statement constituted misconduct, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The Court held that the State’s explanations for peremptory challenges were gender-neutral and credible, the prosecutor’s comment did not amount to misconduct, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

A trustee filed a lawsuit against a credit union, claiming that the credit union failed to accept negotiable instruments totaling $8,500,000, refused to open a trust account, and did not provide a written explanation for its refusal. The trustee sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages, on behalf of the trust. The trustee, who is not an attorney, filed complaints with similar allegations and included documents characteristic of the sovereign citizen movement.The District Court of McIntosh County, Southeast Judicial District, presided by Judge Daniel D. Narum, reviewed the case. The court determined that the trustee was not a licensed attorney and therefore could not represent the trust or its beneficiaries in legal proceedings. Despite this, the court considered the merits of the claims and found that the credit union was not obligated to accept the instruments, which were not legal tender. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the trustee, as a non-attorney, was not authorized to provide legal representation for the trust beneficiaries. The court held that all filings made by the trustee, including the notice of appeal, were void due to the unauthorized practice of law. It further determined that the lawsuit was void from inception and that dismissal should have been without prejudice, as there was no adjudication on the merits. The Supreme Court imposed sanctions against the trustee individually for pervasive inaccuracies and frivolous arguments, awarded attorney’s fees and double costs to the credit union, denied all motions filed by the trustee as void, and dismissed the appeal. View "Jacobson v. First Community Credit Union" on Justia Law

A family dispute arose after the deaths of William and Elaine Stramer, who had five children and owned farmland in North Dakota. Their 2013 wills gave Douglas the option to purchase the farmyard around his house and Todd the option to purchase the remaining farmland for $100 per acre within one year of the surviving spouse’s death, provided Todd moved back to North Dakota and “actively farmed” the land. After William died in 2015, various trusts were created to hold the land, with Todd named as trustee. Elaine died in 2022, and Todd became personal representative of her estate. Subsequently, Douglas and Ann filed actions challenging Todd’s management and the exercise of the purchase options.The District Court of Emmons County consolidated the cases and conducted a bench trial. The court found the Elaine Stramer Irrevocable Trust void due to lack of capacity. It determined Douglas’s option encompassed 25 acres as identified in a 2014 plat, while finding Todd had not “actively farmed” and therefore did not validly exercise his purchase option. The court invalidated Todd’s self-executed contracts for deed, removed him as trustee and personal representative, and appointed Steve Stramer instead. The court declined to award damages for Todd’s use and possession of the farm from 2023 to 2025, citing insufficient information.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held the district court did not err in finding Todd had not actively farmed the land within the meaning of the will, nor in removing Todd from his fiduciary roles. However, it concluded the district court erred in finding Douglas’s option included 25 acres, holding instead that it should be limited to 5.96 acres identified as the farmyard. The Court also held that the district court misapplied the law on damages and remanded for a determination of damages for Todd’s wrongful occupation of the farm. View "Stramer v. Stramer" on Justia Law

Dallas William Rice was charged with two class A felonies relating to theft of property valued over $50,000. He was initially released on an unsecured appearance bond. Rice and the State negotiated a plea agreement under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), which provides for a binding sentence, and Rice entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to commit theft. However, the district court rejected the proposed plea agreement without clarifying whether it was accepted, and immediately exonerated Rice’s bond, ordering him held in custody pending further proceedings. The court did not follow the required procedures for rejecting a binding plea agreement, nor did it provide Rice with the opportunity to withdraw his plea, as mandated by Rule 11.Prior to this, a request was made to the Supreme Court of North Dakota to reassign Rice’s case to a judge outside the North Central Judicial District to avoid an appearance of impropriety, which was denied. After the district court’s actions regarding the plea and bond, Rice petitioned the Supreme Court of North Dakota for a supervisory writ to reinstate his bond and to reassign his case to a judge from outside the district.The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court erred in exonerating Rice’s bond and ordering him held without properly accepting the guilty plea or providing the required advisements under Rule 11(c)(5). The court held that the district court must promptly determine Rice’s release conditions in accordance with the state constitution and Rule 46. However, the Supreme Court denied Rice’s request for reassignment to an out-of-district judge, concluding that Rice had not shown actual bias or filed a proper motion for disqualification in the district court. The petition for supervisory writ was therefore granted in part and denied in part. View "Rice v. Lee" on Justia Law