Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Zachary Archambault appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child, arguing the district court erred by granting a continuance and denying his motion for a mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Archambault" on Justia Law

Zhiwar Ismail appealed after he was convicted on two counts of possession and delivery of a controlled substance. He argued on appeal he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to move for acquittal on all charges, and for failing to make certain objections at trial. Further, Ismail argued the trial court improperly questioned witnesses. Finding no reversible error in the trial court proceedings, and that his counsel did not render constitutionally ineffective assistance, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Ismail’s convictions. View "North Dakota v. Ismail" on Justia Law

Michael Sapa was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. On appeal, he argued the district court erred by excluding evidence about the victim’s age. He claims two statutes, N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-01 and 14-10-01, created competing and confusing definitions of “minors.” He also argued N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01 was unconstitutionally vague. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Sapa’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. Sapa" on Justia Law

Cole Peters appealed his convictions for: terrorizing, two counts of gross sexual imposition, attempted murder, and felonious restraint. Peters argued on appeal that the State violated his right to a speedy trial, that the district court erred when it failed to exclude duplicate photographs of B.C., the victim, and that the court should have given a curative instruction to the jury on the duplicate pictures. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "North Dakota v. Peters" on Justia Law

Ryan Kratz appealed after the district court denied his motion seeking to correct an illegal sentence and dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. The court held Kratz had failed to sufficiently support his application and found it would not be equitable for the application to be heard pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the application for post-conviction relief. View "Kratz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Wendy Davis-Heinze appealed her conviction for reckless endangerment. She argued on appeal that the district court conducted an off-the-record discussion with counsel outside the courtroom and outside of the view of the public in violation of her right to public trial under the Sixth Amendment. She also argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the non-public discussion was not a trial closure in violation of the Sixth Amendment public trial right. View "North Dakota v. Davis-Heinze" on Justia Law

Jody Kuntz appealed a district court order denying her application for post-conviction relief. Kuntz was charged with criminal mischief and criminal trespass. Before trial, Kuntz pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced according to a negotiated agreement. Kuntz subsequently filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw her guilty pleas. Kuntz argued there was new evidence to show she was incompetent at the time she entered her guilty pleas and it would be a manifest injustice if she were unable to withdraw her guilty pleas. Finding no reversible error in the district court order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kuntz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Elijah Addai appealed after a district court’s dismissed his request for post-conviction relief. Addai was convicted by jury of class AA felony murder for the fatal stabbing of David Delonais. Addai claimed the North Dakota Supreme Court’s discussion of public trials in North Dakota v. Martinez, 956 N.W.2d 772 (2021), created a new rule that had to be applied retroactively, was applicable to his case, and precluded the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed dismissal of the request for post-conviction relief. View "Addai v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Christopher Vickerman was convicted by jury of a class AA felony murder. Vickerman argued on appeal that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay statements of the victim; (3) he was denied his right to confront a witness; (4) the trial judge demonstrated impermissible bias during sentencing; and (5) the court imposed an improper sentence of a term of years exceeding his life expectancy when the maximum sentence of life without parole requires the calculation of his life expectancy. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Vickerman" on Justia Law

Jason Vogt appealed the dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Here, Vogt claimed he was innocent and his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Further, he contended his guilty plea was made involuntarily, and his confession was coerced. Vogt presented a psychological assessment that he claimed was newly discovered evidence. The assessment was prepared after his application for relief was filed, and opined Vogt may have involuntarily waived his rights and falsely confessed. Appealing the dismissal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Vogt argued the State waived its affirmative defenses and its motion for dismissal was untimely. Finding no reversible error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Vogt’s application for relief. View "Vogt v. North Dakota" on Justia Law