Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Corey Fleck appealed after a jury found him guilty of one count of theft of property by deception. In March 2019 Fleck sold cattle at Kist Livestock in Mandan. The cattle were subject to liens. Kist issued a check for $10,039, naming Fleck and several lienholders as payees on the check. A friend of Fleck subsequently brought the check to a bank in Elgin, where the check was cashed and the funds deposited into Fleck’s bank account. After the funds had been deposited in Fleck’s account, the bank determined the endorsements from the lienholders were fraudulent and withdrew the money from Fleck’s account. Kist Livestock subsequently reissued a check, proper endorsements were obtained, and the money was distributed by cashier’s checks under an agreement between Fleck and the lienholder payees. Fleck received $400 from the reissued check under the agreement. In November 2019, the State charged Fleck with one count of theft of property by deception, a class B felony. In September 2020, Fleck moved to dismiss the matter, contending that because the only conduct alleged by the State had not occurred in Morton County, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant’s alleged acts. The court denied his motion. After the State rested its case, Fleck moved for an acquittal, arguing the State had not established that any crime had occurred in Morton County, failed to prove he had knowingly obtained property by deception, failed to prove the property was property of the lienholders, or failed to prove the property or services stolen exceeded $10,000 in value. The court denied his motion. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Fleck" on Justia Law

Neil McGinnis appealed a district court’s second amended criminal judgments entered after the court revoked his probation and resentenced him to five years’ imprisonment in case 08-2017-CR-00721 and five years’ imprisonment in case 08-2016-CR-01827, both to run concurrently. In 2017, McGinnis pled guilty to burglary and theft of property in the case ending in 00721. He was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment on both counts with all but 33 days suspended and was placed on probation for a period of two years. He then pled guilty to a second theft of property offense two months later in the case ending in 01827. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with all but 53 days suspended and was placed on probation for a period of three years. He argued his sentence was illegal because the court resentenced him to a length of time that exceeded his original sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in 08-2016- CR-01827. The Court reversed and remanded the second amended criminal judgment entered in 08-2017-CR-00721, finding that the sentence was illegal because McGinnis was re-sentenced for a duration exceeding the suspended sentence imposed in his judgment of conviction. View "North Dakota v. McGinnis" on Justia Law

David Gaddie appealed after a jury found him guilty of four counts of gross sexual imposition. Gaddie argued the jury instructions were confusing, the district court erred by not instructing the jury it must unanimously agree on the specific act underlying each count, and the court’s inclusion of the term “willfully” in the jury instructions was improper. At trial, Gaddie did not object to the court’s jury instructions. After reviewing the case under the obvious error standard of review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part and reverse the judgment in part. The Court agreed with Gaddie that the sexual contact charges created a unanimity issue. Count III required the jury to find Gaddie touched the victim’s “breasts and/or vulva.” Count IV required the jury to find he touched “her vulva with his penis.” The jury instructions did not provide sufficient factual information to distinguish Count III from Count IV to the extent each permitted a finding of guilt based on a touching of the victim’s vulva. "The jurors may all have agreed Gaddie touched the victim’s vulva on two occasions, but they may not have agreed on which acts occurred. The instructions in this case clearly deviate from the rule we set out in Martinez. We conclude an obvious error occurred. The error in this case implicates Gaddie’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict." The Court reversed the judgment as to Count III. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Gaddie" on Justia Law

Holden Kastet appealed after a jury found him guilty of simple assault. Kastet argued the district court erred by failing to provide his requested jury instructions on self-defense and consent. According to trial testimony, Kastet and Nicholas Fuchs exchanged messages on Facebook relating to a woman they both knew. A witness testified Fuchs approached Kastet in a Jamestown bar. The witness testified Fuchs told Kastet, “[O]kay. Let’s go,” and provoked Kastet to engage in a fight. Kastet testified he and Fuchs agreed to go outside to fight. The trial evidence included a video of the bar’s exterior. The video showed Kastet and Fuchs standing face-to-face before Kastet head-butted and punched Fuchs. Kastet was arrested and charged with simple assault. Before trial, Kastet requested jury instructions on the defenses of consent and self-defense. Kastet argued he acted in self-defense or Fuchs consented to the fight. The district court denied Kastet’s requested instructions, finding they were not appropriate in this case. A jury found Kastet guilty. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred by failing to provide Kastet’s requested instructions. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "City of Jamestown v. Kastet" on Justia Law

Daniel Samaniego appealed after he was convicted of gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the required force for the offense and whether the crime occurred in Cass County. He also argued the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by questioning law enforcement about whether he had been interviewed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was sufficient evidence to find Samaniego guilty of gross sexual imposition and the issue of prosecutorial misconduct was not sufficiently preserved for appeal or argued on appeal. View "North Dakota v. Samaniego" on Justia Law

In August 2020, two law enforcement officers were dispatched to an outdoor food vendor in Bismarck after receiving reports of two intoxicated individuals passed out under a picnic table. Officer Mehrer, one of the responding officers, was able to immediately identify defendant Mitchell Halsey as one of the individuals because of his prior encounters with Halsey. Officer Mehrer checked Halsey’s name with dispatch and learned there was a warrant for his arrest. While Halsey was being placed under arrest, methamphetamine was discovered in his pocket. Further, when Officer Mehrer placed Halsey into the patrol car, Halsey informed him that he had recently tested positive for Covid. Officer Mehrer began to place a facemask over Halsey’s face, but during this process, Halsey coughed in Officer Mehrer’s direction. Officer Mehrer then transported Halsey to the hospital to be medically cleared because Halsey was severely intoxicated. Halsey was ultimately convicted by jury of attempted contact by bodily fluids, preventing arrest, and possession of controlled substances. Halsey argued the district court erred by admitting evidence identifying the felony charge underlying the arrest warrant. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Halsey" on Justia Law

The State charged Sheldon Davis with murder, endangering by fire or explosion, and arson after a body was discovered in his apartment following a fire. He was convicted intentional or knowing murder, endangering by fire, and arson. Davis argued on appeal that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the district court admitted testimonial hearsay statements made by the victim under the theory of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Davis also argued the court erred by ordering him to pay restitution without holding a restitution hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the original judgment of conviction, reversed the amended criminal judgment, and remanded for a restitution hearing. View "North Dakota v. Davis" on Justia Law

Cori Willard appealed after she conditionally pleaded guilty to five drug-related offenses. She argued the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress because the arresting officer had no legal basis to stop her and the officer’s mistake of law was not objectively reasonable. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Willard" on Justia Law

Robert Bolinske Sr. was convicted by jury of harassment. In October 2019, Robert Bolinske Jr. reported several threatening voicemails left on his office answering machine by Bolinske Sr. A Sheriff’s Deputy, who was working with Bolinske Sr. on a separate investigation, reviewed the voicemails. The deputy called Bolinske Sr. and asked him to come to the Sheriff’s Department. Bolinske Sr. refused. On Friday, the deputy again called Bolinske Sr. and asked him to come to the department. Bolinske Sr. said he was busy working but would come in the next week. Instead of waiting, the deputy said he would come to the place Bolinske Sr. was working to have him sign paperwork pertaining to the separate investigation. The deputy went to where Bolinske Sr. was working, asked Bolinske Sr. to sign the paperwork, and arrested him for terrorizing and harassment based on the voicemails left at Bolinske Jr.’s office. After the arrest, Bolinske Sr. asked to speak to a lawyer and to be taken directly to the Burleigh County Courthouse to see a judge and have bail assessed. The deputy instead transported Bolinske Sr. to the Burleigh Morton Detention Center. By the time Bolinske Sr. was booked into the detention center, it was Friday evening and the courthouse was closed. Bolinske Sr. remained in jail over the weekend and made his initial appearance the following Monday afternoon. The complaint against Bolinske Sr. was signed by the district court the same day. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Bolinske Sr. argued the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on a delayed probable cause determination and outrageous government conduct. Bolinske Sr. also argued the district court erred in declining to give his proposed jury instructions and receive his trial exhibits. The Supreme Court affirmed that part relating to jury instructions and exhibits, and remanded in part for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Bolinske, Sr." on Justia Law

Rodney Friesz appealed a district court’s order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Friesz was convicted of manslaughter and arson following a jury trial in February 2016. In 2017, Friesz appealed his convictions based on insufficiency of the evidence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In May 2018, Friesz filed his first application for post-conviction relief. The application was denied and affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court. In May 2020, Friesz filed a second application for post-conviction relief alleging: ineffective assistance of trial counsel; denial of effective assistance of counsel on his post-conviction appeal with appellate counsel; insufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction; denial of his fourth amendment rights regarding the warrantless search of the residence, the seizure of a firearm, and the failure of the court to grant his motion to suppress; and failure to disclose DNA evidence by the prosecution. The district court dismissed the second application for post-conviction relief. In March 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the court’s denial and remanded the case to allow Friesz the 14 days to respond to the State’s motion for summary dismissal. On remand, Friesz was given additional time, well over 30 days, to respond. The district court again dismissed the second application for post-conviction relief, finding: Friesz’s application was filed well beyond the two-year statute of limitations, and neither his application nor his response to the State’s motion identified any competent evidence to support his allegation that the State failed to disclose DNA evidence. The court found the hearsay statement contained in his response was not competent evidence. Further, the court reasoned it could not determine that the newly discovered DNA evidence, when reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that Friesz did not engage in the criminal conduct, “especially given the fact that the jury was presented with an interview in which [Friesz] confessed to the crimes.” Appealing the district court's second dismissal, Friesz argued the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Finding no reversible error in this second dismissal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Friesz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law