Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice charges of criminal trespass, burglary, and theft of property against Joseph Brown. With the exception of criminal mischief, all charges were class C felonies. At the preliminary hearing, Officer Gannon Miller was the only witness. He was not the investigating officer and had no contact with Brown prior to the preliminary hearing. Officer Miller testified he did not respond to the scene of the possible break-in. The court dismissed the felony charges against Brown, informing the State “unless [the witness] has some actual, hands-on, direct contact with this crime,” the court would not find probable cause. The court determined that “[p]roducing a witness with no point of contact with the case, and whose only role in the hearing would be to read reports and affidavits prepared by others is insufficient to establish probable cause at a preliminary hearing.” On appeal, the State argued the court erred in refusing to admit hearsay testimony offered by the State’s witness. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed. "While a court is given discretion in admitting hearsay evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 5.1(a), the court here permitted only a limited examination of Officer Miller before determining he had no basis to provide any testimony. In light of the burden of proof placed upon the State, and noting the court should draw all inferences in favor of the prosecution, we conclude the court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it unreasonably prevented the State’s inquiry into matters that were relevant to a determination of probable cause. The court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the State to fully examine Officer Miller and in not considering whether Officer Miller’s testimony was implausible or incredible. We hold a court must allow the State to present its evidence at the preliminary hearing before determining what weight to give that evidence, including otherwise inadmissible hearsay." The matter was remanded for a preliminary hearing. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Len Vannett appealed an amended criminal judgment entered after his conditional guilty plea for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He argued the arresting officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop and the approved methods were not followed in administering the intoxilyzer breath machine. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Vannett's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Vannett" on Justia Law

Allison Houkom appealed after she was found guilty of giving false information to a law enforcement officer. In 2019, Officer Matt Oldham of the West Fargo Police Department attempted to serve a warrant on a male at a residence in West Fargo. Houkom was in the driveway of the residence smoking a cigarette. Oldham approached Houkom and asked if the male he was looking for was inside the residence. She stated she did not know. Oldham then asked Houkom if she lived at the residence. She responded that she did not. Oldham then proceeded to ask Houkom for her name. She responded with “Kaylinn Marie Schmainda.” When Oldham asked for her date of birth, Houkom responded that he did not need it. Oldham then contacted dispatch to check the name. Approximately a minute later, Houkom informed Oldham that she had given him a false name because she had an outstanding warrant. Houkom then provided her correct name, and Oldham determined the warrant was from Minnesota and was non-extraditable. Houkom was arrested and charged with giving false information. On appeal, Houkom argued: (1) the district court erroneously denied her pre-trial motion to dismiss; (2) the district court misinterpreted N.D.C.C. 12.1-11-03(1); and (3) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she interfered with an investigation or materially misled an officer by giving a false name. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that under a correct application of the statute there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict. View "North Dakota v. Houkom" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota appealed an amended judgment entered after the district court modified Bradley Neilan’s sentence under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). In 2019, Neilan was arrested for possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver. On February 9, 2021, the parties appeared at a change of plea hearing. At the hearing, the State detailed a plea agreement in which it dropped the firearm enhancements from Neilan’s charges, removing the mandatory minimum sentences. The plea agreement provided that Neilan would be incarcerated for four years with all but 18 months suspended. At the hearing, in response to the district court inquiry as to why the State was seeking incarceration rather than probation, the State indicated that if the plea agreement was rejected the State would withdraw the proposed amendments and pursue the mandatory minimum sentencing. Neilan confirmed his preference to accept the plea agreement. The court, noting the State was giving it “zero option,” accepted the agreement and stated it would sentence Neilan to its terms. The day following the district court's accepting the plea agreement, the court signed and entered a judgment consistent with the terms of the plea agreement. Later that day, the court initiated its own N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) motion to consider reducing the sentence from incarceration to probation. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, the State argued the court was precluded from modifying a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement or, in the alternative, the court abused its discretion by modifying the sentence. Neilan challenged the State’s right to appeal. The Supreme Court concluded the court’s reduction of Neilan’s sentence was appealable, the plain language of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b) provided the court with the authority to exercise its discretion in reducing a sentence, and, in this case, the court abused its discretion in reducing Neilan’s sentence. However, as mandated by N.D.C.C. 29-28-35, the Supreme Court's opinion was limited to affirming the sentence imposed by the court and pointing out the error in the proceeding. The Court, accordingly, affirmed the amended judgment. View "North Dakota v. Neilan" on Justia Law

Michael Jon McCreary appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. On April 6, 2019, McCreary was attending an event at a hotel in Williston, North Dakota. J.P., the victim, was working as a security guard for the hotel. During the course of the night, McCreary was involved in an altercation with another guest behind the hotel. At one point, J.P.’s attention was drawn away from McCreary. When J.P. turned back, McCreary swung a “cylinder object” and struck J.P. in the forehead. J.P. described the object as “something very similar to a Maglite” although he “didn’t see the head of the flashlight itself.” Photographs were introduced showing a large, dark-colored flashlight “approximately one foot in length” attached to a holster on McCreary’s hip earlier in the night. On appeal, McCreary contended the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, arguing the flashlight used in the assault was not a “dangerous weapon” as defined by N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(6). The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a flashlight could be considered a dangerous weapon under N.D.C.C. 12.1-01- 04(6), and sufficient evidence supported McCreary’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. McCreary" on Justia Law

Lorry Van Chase appealed a district court order summarily denying his application for postconviction relief. In 2014, a jury convicted Chase of gross sexual imposition. He appealed and the conviction was affirmed. In March 2020, Chase filed a third application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. The State answered the application, and requested summary dismissal within its answer. The district court scheduled oral argument on the application. No response to the request for summary dismissal was filed by Chase. After oral argument, the court summarily denied the application for postconviction relief. Chase argued the district court erred by summarily denying his application without requiring the State to file a motion for summary disposition. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in treating the State’s answer as the motion required by statute and rule, and overruled Delvo v. North Dakota, 782 N.W.2d 72, and Chisholm v. North Dakota, 937 N.W.2d 520, which had allowed the State to request summary disposition in its answer. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Chase v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order dismissing a felony charge of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia for lack of probable cause. The State charged Dylan Nupdal with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia (a class C felony), among other offenses. The State argued the court erred in concluding a scale only alleged to have been used to weigh and package methamphetamine into smaller quantities did not satisfy the statutory element requiring use or intent to use the scale to produce or prepare methamphetamine. The State asserted the scale was used, or possessed with intent to be used, to produce or prepare methamphetamine. Under the plain language of the statute, a person was guilty of a class C felony if the drug paraphernalia is used, or possessed with intent to be used, in eight enumerated ways. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined these eight prohibited uses did not include using, or possessing with an intent to use, drug paraphernalia to weigh a controlled substance, which was what was alleged by the State, and ultimately found by the district court. "The definition section, N.D.C.C. 19-03.4-01, supports this interpretation, providing that drug paraphernalia includes kits, blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, grinders, and mixing devices used in producing or preparing controlled substances, N.D.C.C. sections 19-03.4-01(2), (8), and scales and balances used in weighing or measuring controlled substances, N.D.C.C. section 19-03.4-01(5). This section implicitly recognizes scales are used to weigh or measure controlled substances when categorized as drug paraphernalia." Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding the State failed to establish probable cause of Nupdal unlawfully possessing drug paraphernalia, and dismissing the felony charge. View "North Dakota v. Nupdal" on Justia Law

Michael Brewer appealed his sentence on charges of terrorizing, simple assault on a peace officer, preventing arrest, disarming or attempting to disarm a law enforcement officer, simple assault, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with all but 18 months suspended and crediting him with 157 days of time served. On appeal, Brewer argued the district court erred in calculating his time served and he is entitled to 419 days’ credit for time served. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Russell Craig appealed the summary dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief based on res judicata. Craig pleaded guilty to murder in 2007 and was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Craig initiated a postconviction proceeding in 2013, which was summarily dismissed. In 2018, in the underlying criminal case, Craig filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the motion, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Craig filed another application for postconviction relief in October 2020, arguing his parole date was moved in violation of ex post facto law. The State answered, denying Craig’s allegations and raising the affirmative defense of res judicata. The State moved for summary disposition arguing Craig’s claims were barred by res judicata. Craig argued his claims were not barred by res judicata. The Supreme Court concluded Craig’s claims were barred by res judicata, and affirmed the judgment. View "Craig v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Wyatt Kukert appealed a district court judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Kukert argued on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his motions to dismiss and suppress. Kukert claimed he did not voluntarily waive his Miranda rights, and his statements to law enforcement were not corroborated by other evidence of sexual contact. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Kukert" on Justia Law