Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Terri Yellow Hammer appealed an amended criminal judgment awarding restitution in the amount of $193,885.59. Yellow Hammer pled guilty to criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular injury arising out of a crash with another vehicle. Conan Magilke died at the scene, and Angela Magilke sustained significant injuries. On appeal, Yellow Hammer argued the district court erred in ordering restitution for future medical expenses in the amount of $95,000. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Yellow Hammer" on Justia Law

Perry Oshiro II appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct his sentence. On appeal, Oshiro argue the court illegally sentenced him because the court did not give him credit for all the days he previously had served. Because Oshiro was released from prison while this appeal was pending, the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "North Dakota v. Oshiro" on Justia Law

The State appealed the dismissal of a criminal child neglect case against Antoinette Rodriguez. The State argued Rodriguez had sufficient notice of the charge against her, and the district court erred when it dismissed the amended information against Rodriguez. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended information. View "North Dakota v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Randy Houle was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and false information to law enforcement. On appeal, Houle argued the district court erred in improperly instructing the jury regarding circumstantial evidence. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Houle" on Justia Law

Dean Benter was convicted by jury on six counts of possession of certain materials prohibited. Benter argued he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel, and contended the district court failed to question him during trial to determine whether or not he was competent to present his own defense. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Benter’s convictions. View "North Dakota v. Benter" on Justia Law

In November 2019, Josiah Koval pleaded guilty to stalking. Koval entered a conditional guilty plea to violating a protection order. He later appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the charges against him, arguing the underlying post-disposition order prohibiting contact was illegal. Finding that Koval’s arguments were an impermissible collateral attack on the 2019 judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "North Dakota v. Koval" on Justia Law

Richard Goodwin, II appealed a corrected criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pleaded guilty to actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence - refusal. Goodwin was cited in September 2020. Goodwin filed proposed jury instructions prior to the scheduled trial. The proposed instructions included variations of the essential elements of the crime, an instruction indicating whether Goodwin refused the chemical test was a question of fact for the jury, and instructions on defenses related to confusion and mistake. Goodwin made it clear he wanted the North Dakota Supreme Court to advise whether certain instructions were acceptable and asked the district court to deny his instructions on the record to prompt appellate review. Because the Supreme Court found no adverse determination of a pretrial motion for it to consider, the Court declined to address Goodwin’s arguments. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "City of Bismarck v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

Mackenzy Bazile appealed after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition. Bazile argued the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Bazile also argued the court erred by failing to make findings on the record regarding Bazile’s motion for mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bazile" on Justia Law

Komikka Gregory appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her petition for post-conviction relief. In 2018, a jury found Gregory not guilty of the charge of murder, but guilty of a charge of manslaughter. In August 2021, Gregory filed an application for post-conviction relief requesting her conviction be set aside and she be granted a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed an answer which included a request for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09. The district court deferred ruling on the motion for summary disposition and ordered Gregory to submit, within 30 days, declarations and other admissible evidence in support of her petition and opposition to the motion. With no response from Gregory, the court granted summary disposition. Gregory argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the district court erred in granting summary disposition because the State failed to make a separate motion. The State agreed that the matter should have been reversed and remanded based on the North Dakota Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chase v. North Dakota, 966 N.W.2d 557. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Gregory v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dr. Jacob Schmitz appealed a district court judgment ordering: (1) the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to disclose a limited portion of a recording from an April 2020 executive session of the Board; (2) denying the disclosure of any portion of a May 2020 executive session; and (3) the denial of his motion for attorney’s fees. In June 2020, Dr. Schmitz commenced this lawsuit, alleging that the Board violated the law regarding access to public records and meetings. The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to address Dr. Schmitz’s allegation that his right to due process was violated by the in-camera review because it was not properly preserved; reversed the denial of attorney’s fees; and remanded for additional portions of the executive sessions to be disclosed to Dr. Schmitz and for a determination of an appropriate award of attorney’s fees. View "Schmitz v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners" on Justia Law