Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Police responded to a house fire in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where an officer observed Antonio Medina behaving evasively and distancing himself from law enforcement. Medina left the scene in his red Ford Explorer and later returned on foot. Officers located Medina’s unattended, unlocked vehicle in a commercial parking lot nearby. Through the window, they observed keys, a cut straw with white residue, and a box for a digital scale. Officers conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle, seizing the straw, an electronic scale with residue, and small baggies. The residue tested positive for cocaine.Medina was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, both class A misdemeanors. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unconstitutional. The Northeast Central Judicial District Court denied the motion, ruling the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applied because there was probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. Medina entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court previously remanded the case for correction of the criminal judgment to specify that the plea was conditional, as required by state procedural rules. After the district court entered an amended judgment, Medina appealed again.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed whether the warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception. The court held the exception applied because the vehicle, though parked and unoccupied, was readily mobile and located in a public commercial lot. The court found probable cause based on Medina’s suspicious behavior and the drug-related items visible inside the vehicle. The court concluded that the search was valid under the automobile exception and affirmed the amended judgment. View "State v. Medina" on Justia Law

A driver was cited for failing to display license plates on his vehicle, an infraction under a municipal ordinance. The matter was transferred from municipal court to the District Court of Stark County for a jury trial. Before trial, the defendant filed multiple motions, including to disqualify both the prosecutor and judge, to continue or stay the proceedings, and to dismiss the case, most of which were denied. Ultimately, a jury found that the defendant had committed the violation. Following these proceedings, the district court designated the defendant as a vexatious litigant, citing his numerous and largely meritless filings. After the jury’s verdict, the defendant appealed the vexatious litigant order to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he claimed the underlying proceeding was criminal, not civil, and further contending that the vexatious litigant designation violated his constitutional rights. He also challenged the district court’s findings, asserting abuse of discretion. The City of Dickinson responded by seeking sanctions, alleging the defendant’s appellate brief cited fictitious cases. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the underlying proceeding was a noncriminal infraction under state law, so the district court had jurisdiction to issue a vexatious litigant order under the applicable administrative rule. The Court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in designating the defendant a vexatious litigant, finding ample evidence of frivolous and burdensome litigation tactics. The constitutional challenges were rejected, as the vexatious litigant rule provided sufficient procedural safeguards. Additionally, the Court found that the defendant’s use of fictitious case citations warranted sanctions and ordered him to pay $500 to the City. The district court’s vexatious litigant order was affirmed. View "City of Dickinson v. Helgeson" on Justia Law

The case concerns divorced parents who share a minor child. After their 2019 divorce, the mother was awarded primary residential responsibility, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. In 2024, the father moved to modify the custody arrangement, citing a material change in circumstances and seeking joint, and later, primary residential responsibility. Following hearings in 2025, the District Court of Burleigh County granted the father primary residential responsibility, established a parenting plan for the mother, and entered a second amended judgment. The mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred by modifying custody without finding a material change in circumstances, violated her due process rights, improperly delegated authority to the child and a counselor regarding parenting time, and suspended child support without adequate findings. She also asserted cumulative errors and alleged parental alienation. The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court’s findings on the material change of circumstances, best interests factors, and award of primary residential responsibility were not clearly erroneous. The court determined that most of the mother’s arguments were inadequately briefed and thus were not considered on appeal, except for her claim regarding the delegation of parenting time authority. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the district court improperly delegated its authority over parenting time to both the minor child and her therapist, allowing them to determine the conditions and occurrence of the mother’s contact with the child. The court found that the district court failed to provide sufficient findings or a clear link between the mother’s conduct and potential harm to the child that would justify such a restriction. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings limited to parenting time. View "Vetter v. Vetter" on Justia Law

A seventeen-year-old defendant was charged with murder after stabbing another individual during an altercation in a Grand Forks, North Dakota apartment parking lot. The victim died from the stab wound. With the assistance of counsel, the defendant entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to murder. The agreement stipulated a sixty-year sentence with twenty years suspended, and permitted the defendant to request a downward departure to as low as fifteen years. During the plea hearing, the court confirmed the defendant’s understanding of the plea and its consequences, and accepted the plea as voluntary.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over the case. At sentencing, the court reviewed investigative reports, victim impact statements, and arguments from both sides. The court considered the defendant’s age and behavior, including social media posts related to the incident. Ultimately, the court imposed a sixty-year sentence with twenty years suspended, consistent with the plea agreement, without granting a downward departure. The defendant did not object to the adequacy of the plea colloquy or move to withdraw the guilty plea before sentencing.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. The defendant argued that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to an insufficient Rule 11 colloquy, and that the forty-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. The court applied the obvious error standard, finding that the District Court erred by not adequately establishing a factual basis for the plea, but concluded the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court further held that the forty-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense and did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Haskins" on Justia Law

Authorities responded to a residence to investigate an alleged assault involving a young child. Upon arrival, social workers and a detective entered the property through an open garage door, which led to an interior entryway. The resident, Shantel Lais, allowed them inside. Once inside, the detective observed hazardous conditions, including accessible firearms, open alcohol, drugs, and drug paraphernalia within reach of a two-year-old child. As a result, Christopher Golberg was charged with child neglect, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm.Prior to trial in the District Court of Mercer County, South Central Judicial District, Golberg moved to suppress evidence obtained during the search, arguing the detective unlawfully entered the garage without a warrant or consent, thus tainting the evidence subsequently gathered. A suppression hearing was held, where the detective testified that the garage functioned as the main entrance due to home construction and that the exterior door was open. The district court found that Golberg did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage under these circumstances and denied the motion to suppress. At trial, Golberg twice moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that he did not reside at the house; both motions were denied. The jury found Golberg guilty of child neglect and not guilty on the other charges.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota considered whether the denial of the suppression motion and the sufficiency of the evidence were erroneous. The court held that the open garage, serving as the main access point and lacking express signs restricting entry, did not afford Golberg a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, no unlawful search occurred. The court also found that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict on child neglect. The amended criminal judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Golberg" on Justia Law

After filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, which was dismissed, the petitioner sent emails to the employer’s counsel that led to state criminal charges for terrorizing in Cass County, North Dakota. At trial in state district court, the petitioner was convicted by a jury and sentenced to jail time with probation. During her probation, she was found to possess a firearm, resulting in revocation of probation and a new sentence.The petitioner appealed her criminal conviction to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the State’s failure to preserve and disclose evidence constituted a Brady violation and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. Subsequently, in the district court, the petitioner sought postconviction relief, alleging constitutional violations, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unlawful withholding of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. She also moved to disqualify the presiding judge. The district court summarily dismissed her application, finding most claims barred by res judicata or misuse of process, and denied the motion for disqualification after a hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s rulings. It held that the district court erred by summarily dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing, as the State had not moved for summary disposition on those claims. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. It affirmed the dismissal of the other claims, finding the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, correctly denied the motion to disqualify the judge, and properly dismissed other claims as procedurally barred or lacking merit. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the ineffective assistance claim. View "Pederson v. State" on Justia Law

A healthcare clinic and several physicians providing abortion services in North Dakota challenged the constitutionality of N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1, a law criminalizing most abortions with certain exceptions. The plaintiffs argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague regarding when abortions could be performed to preserve the life or health of a pregnant woman. They asserted that the law's language failed to provide clear guidance to physicians about permissible conduct, especially given the severe criminal penalties for violations. Testimony from medical experts detailed the unpredictable and rapidly evolving risks that pregnancy can pose to a mother's health, and highlighted the difficulties in interpreting the statutory terms such as “serious health risk,” “substantial physical impairment,” and “major bodily function.”The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court found that the statute was impermissibly vague, concluding that its unclear language chilled physicians from providing constitutionally protected medical care. The court also determined that the law infringed on pregnant women’s fundamental rights under the North Dakota Constitution and was not narrowly tailored to promote health or protect life. As a result, the court declared N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 unconstitutional and void.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s judgment. The justices issued separate opinions, but did not reach the four-member majority required by the state constitution to declare a legislative enactment unconstitutional. Therefore, the effect was that the district court’s judgment was reversed, and N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 was not declared unconstitutional. The main holding is that, due to the lack of a sufficient majority, the abortion law was not invalidated and the lower court's judgment was reversed. View "Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to felony child neglect, the defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with three years suspended, credit for 375 days already served, supervised probation, and restitution. Following his release, the State alleged that the defendant violated multiple conditions of his probation. At a probation revocation hearing, the defendant waived his right to counsel and admitted the violations, leading the district court to revoke his probation. The court orally stated the defendant would receive credit for two years plus the time he spent in custody after being arrested on the probation violation warrant, which amounted to twenty-four days.The written order issued after the revocation hearing, however, erroneously recorded the credit for time served as “3 years and 34 days” instead of the correct “2 years and 24 days.” The State moved to correct this mistake under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, arguing it was a clerical error that conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. The District Court of McHenry County granted the State’s motion, found the original written order contained a clerical error, and issued an amended order reflecting the proper credit. The defendant appealed, arguing that the correction improperly reduced his credit for time served and conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. He also asserted his constitutional right to counsel was violated when the court did not appoint an attorney to represent him in the Rule 36 proceedings.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s orders. It held that the correction was a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion under Rule 36 to remedy a clerical error in the judgment so that it accurately reflected the oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing. The court also concluded that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not violated because the correction of a clerical error under Rule 36 is not a critical stage of the prosecution. View "State v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

Joshua Martinez was charged in two separate cases with serious offenses, including attempted murder, reckless endangerment, terrorizing, fleeing from law enforcement, violation of a domestic violence protection order, unlawful firearm possession, and other related crimes. The cases were consolidated and proceeded to a seven-day jury trial, where twelve jurors and two alternates were sworn in. After the first day of trial, Juror 9 was observed interacting with Jacob Martinez, a relative of the defendant. Upon questioning, Juror 9 disclosed he only learned of the familial relationship after speaking with Jacob Martinez. Despite Juror 9’s assurance of impartiality, the district court dismissed him, citing concerns about the interaction, and replaced him with an alternate juror.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over the consolidated trial. Following the jury’s verdict, Martinez was convicted on all counts except one of reckless endangerment. Martinez objected to the removal of Juror 9, arguing that the substitution violated his constitutional rights and exceeded the court’s authority under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c)(1).On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court’s decision to replace Juror 9 constituted an abuse of discretion or violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that substituting a properly qualified alternate juror did not implicate double jeopardy, as it did not terminate the original jeopardy. The court further held that the district court’s expressed concerns regarding Juror 9’s impartiality constituted a sufficient basis for dismissal, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in replacing Juror 9 with an alternate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgments against Martinez. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

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