Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Edward Skorick appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick argued the district court’s factual findings were insufficient to legally conclude he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Specifically, Skorick contended because he did not receive negative behavioral acknowledgements over the review period, the State failed to meet its burden. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court made adequate findings to demonstrate Skorick had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The district court considered the testimony and evidence presented, including Skorick’s past and present conduct, in making its finding he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court noted Skorick’s history of negative behavior at the North Dakota State Hospital, including being oppositional to staff, cursing at staff, and calling staff stupid, to the point of having outside time cut short. The court found Skorick has threatened to commit an offense to get out of the State Hospital so he can return to the state penitentiary. The court stated these behaviors had occurred through October 2020, roughly one year before the hearing, but also indicated Skorick had engaged in inappropriate behavior in early 2021. The court found Skorick refused blood pressure medication in October 2020, and the record reflects Skorick has a history of refusing his medication, including a period in May 2021. The court found, although he did not recently receive negative behavioral write ups, Skorick had not implemented meaningful changes to interrupt his pattern of sexual offenses, Skorick continued to be impulsive and disregard the feelings of others, and Skorick’s behavioral issues remained unchanged and pervasive. Accordingly, the district court judgment was affirmed. View "Interest of Skorick" on Justia Law

David Mbulu appealed a district court order granting his application for post-conviction relief in part and denying it in part. In 2017, Mbulu was convicted of conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition, accomplice to gross sexual imposition, conspiracy to commit murder, and attempted murder. In 2018, Mbulu applied for post-conviction relief, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including that his trial counsel failed to subpoena and call his co-defendant, Jean-Michael Kisi, to testify during the trial. He claimed Kisi’s testimony would have resulted in a different outcome on the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition and accomplice to gross sexual imposition charges. Mbulu later moved to amend his application to include claims that his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective because they failed to object to errors in the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charges, which allowed him to potentially be convicted of non-cognizable offenses After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err by denying Mbulu’s claims related to the jury instructions for the conspiracy to commit gross sexual imposition charge. However, the Court also concluded the court erred by summarily dismissing Mbulu’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to the failure to call his co-defendant as a witness during the criminal trial. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mbulu v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

LuAnn Erickson appealed a district court order granting her motion to vacate its previous order recognizing a tribal court restraining order under N.D.R.Ct. 7.2, but concluding that the tribal court restraining order was entitled to full faith and credit under 18 U.S.C. § 2265. Erickson argued that the court erred in granting full faith and credit to the tribal court order, because the tribal court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and the tribal court failed to provide her reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. Specifically she averred she was not properly served with the tribal court proceedings. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court record did not reflect Erickson was properly served with the tribal court proceedings under the Tribal Code. “Without proper service on Erickson, a hearing should not have been held, and a permanent protection order should not have issued.” Further, because the record demonstrated that Erickson was notified of the protection order proceedings after a permanent protection order was already entered, it follows that she was not afforded reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard to satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 2265(b)(2). “Although Erickson responded to Baker’s attorney’s email attaching exhibits, this email was sent to Erickson the day before the hearing. Further, the email did not contain any information that would have informed Erickson a hearing would be conducted the following day. We conclude this is insufficient to satisfy due process requirements.” Therefore, the district court erred in according full faith and credit to the tribal court restraining order. The district court order granting Erickson’s motion to vacate its previous order recognizing a tribal court restraining order was affirmed; however, insofar as the order granted full faith and credit to the tribal court restraining order, judgment was reversed. View "Baker v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Aisha Piker appealed an amended criminal judgment ordering her to pay restitution. In February 2021, the State charged Piker with aggravated assault after allegedly stabbing her boyfriend in the hand. In June 2021, Piker entered into a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct. The plea agreement provided that Piker would pay restitution as determined at a later date. The district court accepted the plea agreement and entered judgment. Piker argued the district court erred in determining the restitution amount. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Piker" on Justia Law

In May 2021, the State filed a complaint charging Madison Dearinger with hindering law enforcement, a class C felony, and false information to law enforcement, a misdemeanor. Under the felony count, the State alleged Dearinger provided false information to a law enforcement officer before and after her father, Adam Dearinger, committed burglary. At the preliminary hearing, Dearinger moved to dismiss the felony charge of hindering law enforcement arguing she did not commit a felony because she did not know Adam Dearinger committed burglary at the time she lied to law enforcement. The district court found Dearinger knew of conduct constituting assault and violation of a protection order, but did not analyze whether she knew of conduct constituting burglary. The court determined the State failed to provide evidence for the felony enhancement and dismissed the hindering law enforcement charge. The State argued the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the felony charge of hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03. To this the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and reversed the trial court’s judgment. View "North Dakota v. Dearinger" on Justia Law

Ephrium Thomas appealed after a jury found him guilty of robbery and terrorizing a child victim. Thomas argued the district court erred in admitting evidence of a statement made by him to law enforcement. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the statement. View "North Dakota v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Robert Pulkrabek was convicted by jury in April 2017 on terrorizing and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced in November 2021. Pulkrabek argued a variety of events before and during the trial were structural errors in violation of the constitutional requirement for a public trial. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred, finding that "Because 'one structural error is sufficient to require reversal,' resolution of the remaining issues raised on appeal are unnecessary to our decision." The judgment of conviction was reversed and the case was remanded to the district court for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Pulkrabek" on Justia Law

Megan Christopher appealed a disorderly conduct restraining order entered against her, arguing the district court abused its discretion in issuing the order because reasonable grounds did not exist to believe she engaged in disorderly conduct, and her conduct was constitutionally protected. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lehnerz, et al. v. Christopher" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order granting Corey Wickham’s postconviction relief application. Wickham was found guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Wickham filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing that his conviction was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to a State witness’s comment on Wickham’s invocation of his right to counsel. Because the district judge who presided over Wickham’s trial had retired, an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction application was held in front of a different judge. Testimony was heard from Wickham’s trial counsel at the hearing. The court found that Wickham satisfied the “Strickland” test and granted Wickham’s application for relief. The State argued the district court did not properly apply the Strickland test and its findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were clearly erroneous. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that because the court failed to consider the list of non-exclusive factors outlined in North Dakota v. Wilder (2018 ND 93) in determining the prejudicial effect of trial counsel’s error, the Supreme Court concluded that the postconviction court erred in its application of the law under prong two of the Strickland test. The order granting relief was reversed. View "Wickham v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Duane Landrus, Jr. appealed his conviction by jury for aggravated assault on a correctional officer. In March 2019, Landrus was instructed to go to the behavior intervention unit while in custody at the state penitentiary. Landrus refused to leave his cell and a team was called to remove him. A sergeant at the penitentiary testified that Landrus choked him after he entered Landrus’ cell. Trial took place in June 2021. The district court provided jury instructions listing the essential elements of aggravated assault under the originally-charged subdivision, N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-02(1)(c). Neither Landrus nor the State objected. The jury returned a conviction. Landrus conceded the issues raised on appeal were not argued to the district court, so the appropriate standard of review was obvious error in instructing the jury on the elements of the originally-charged subdivision of N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-02. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed: “the failure to correct this error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of criminal proceedings. We reverse and remand for a new trial using jury instructions consistent with the crime charged.” View "North Dakota v. Landrus" on Justia Law