Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State appealed an order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Nicholas Lelm’s backpack. In 2019, a City of Mandan Police Officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle with two occupants, a driver and a passenger. The driver was arrested on outstanding warrants and for driving under suspension. The driver provided his consent to search the vehicle. Lelm, the passenger, was seated in the front passenger seat with a backpack on his lap. The officer who initiated the stop called for the assistance of a drug-detection canine. After the canine arrived, Lelm was asked to exit the vehicle. Lelm exited and took his backpack with him. Lelm placed his backpack on the ground some distance from the vehicle. The officers then detained Lelm, conducted a pat-down search, placed him in handcuffs, and secured him in the back of a patrol vehicle. While Lelm was detained and secured in the patrol vehicle, his backpack remained on the ground. The canine positively alerted on the front passenger door prompting a search of the vehicle. While on the scene, the canine paid no attention to the backpack. Upon completing the search of the vehicle, the officers searched the backpack and discovered drug paraphernalia and marijuana. After he had been placed under arrest, Lelm complained of chest pains and requested medical assistance. An ambulance was called to the scene to transport Lelm to the hospital. At Lelm’s suppression hearing, an officer testified that ambulance personnel generally require a search of personal property before an individual is transported to the hospital. The officer testified the backpack would have been searched if the backpack was in the ambulance and if Lelm would have claimed the backpack as his property. Challenging the suppression order, the State argued the warrantless search was reasonable under either the automobile exception or search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Alternatively, the State argued that even if the warrantless search was unreasonable, the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Because neither the automobile exception nor the search incident to arrest exception applied to the warrantless search, and the State did not meet its burden of establishing the evidence would have been inevitably discovered, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Lelm" on Justia Law

Randy Jensen appealed a district court order denying his request to vacate the judgment and seek dismissal of the prosecution. In 2017, the North Dakota charged Jensen with possession of controlled substances, possession of drug paraphernalia, and the unlawful use of motor vehicle license plates. Jensen’s trial was originally set for April 24, 2018. His trial was rescheduled twice, and the case was ultimately resolved through a bench trial that started on August 7, 2018. Jensen was found guilty on all charges. Jensen was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with credit for time served prior to sentencing. Jensen appealed his conviction to the North Dakota Supreme Court. He subsequently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. In 2019, Jensen filed an application for post-conviction relief, but later withdrew his application. The post-conviction action was dismissed. The on September 17, 2020, Jensen filed a request to vacate the judgment and dismiss the prosecution arguing he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court concluded Jensen’s request to vacate and dismiss had to be treated as an application for post-conviction relief and was an appealable order. Because Jensen’s application did not raise a genuine issue as to any material fact and the State was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. View "North Dakota v. Jensen" on Justia Law

The State appealed a judgment dismissing its criminal complaint against Orin Gedrose after the district court held N.D.C.C. 6-08-16(1)(d) was unconstitutional. Gedrose was charged with issuing a check without sufficient funds in violation of N.D.C.C. 6-08-16(1)(d), a class C felony. The State alleged on October 31, 2017, Gedrose made and delivered to the Peterson Law Office a check for $120,000 payable to “Peterson Trust Acc’t,” and the check was returned on November 6, 2017, for non-sufficient funds. He argued the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a mens rea requirement for a violation and it did not qualify as a public welfare offense. He also claimed a mens rea element was required because innocent conduct could be severely punished. The State opposed the motion, arguing the statute was a strict liability offense and the lack of a mens rea requirement did not violate due process. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded, concluding the district court erred in deciding N.D.C.C. 6-08-16(1)(d) was unconstitutional. View "North Dakota v. Gedrose" on Justia Law

Marlon Comes appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He argued his sentence was illegal because it failed to accurately reflect credit for “good time” and the corresponding sentence reduction, and his sentence failed to properly account for time he was held in custody prior to sentencing. The district court found that the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“Department of Corrections”) had exclusive discretion to determine whether an offender should be credited with a performance-based sentence reduction. The court also found the statutory remedy of post-conviction relief pursuant to N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 was not available to provide relief for disciplinary measures, custodial treatment, or other violations of civil rights of a convicted person occurring after the imposition of sentence. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concurred with the trial court's analysis and affirmed the order dismissing Comes’ application for post-conviction relief. View "Comes v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Marco Van Der Heever’s motion to suppress evidence, arguing the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Van Der Heever’s vehicle. Van Der Heever was charged with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of his vehicle being stopped by law enforcement. The district court held a hearing, where Sergeant Cory Mortensen provided the sole testimony. Mortensen testified he was contacted by dispatch to respond to a possibly impaired driver at approximately 12:30 a.m. on June 28, 2020. Dispatch informed him that the reporting party, John Towes, stated a silver F-150 pickup was traveling on Central Avenue in Walhalla, North Dakota, stopping and reversing in the middle of the road. Towes reported the driver’s actions caused him to stop and reverse his vehicle to avoid being hit by the F-150. Mortensen testified that Central Avenue was the road between the two bars in Walhalla, and that Towes reported the F-150 was parked “up town at the local bar all afternoon.” Mortensen stated that he was personally familiar with Towes from prior community contacts. After receiving Towes’ phone number from dispatch, Mortensen called him. Towes identified the driver as male and believed he was probably impaired. Towes did not know where the F-150 was located at that time, but called back shortly after and said the vehicle was parked on 7th Street, just north of Delano Avenue. Towes was parked down the road, watching the F-150, and he told Mortensen the driver of the F-150 was outside of his parked vehicle. After the suppression hearing, the district court granted Van Der Heever’s motion to suppress, concluding that Mortensen should have corroborated some of Towes’ report before stopping Van Der Heever’s vehicle. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court misapplied the law when it concluded Mortensen needed to further corroborate Towes’ information. Under the totality of the circumstances, Mortensen had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the court erred by granting Van Der Heever’s motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Van Der Heever" on Justia Law

Bashir Bare Abdi appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. Abdi was charged with luring minors in violation of N.D.C.C. 12.1-20- 05.1, a class B felony, on January 30, 2019. This charge resulted from Abdi’s alleged communications with a person he believed to be a fourteen year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover agent, after Abdi arranged to engage in sexual activity with her in exchange for a candy bar. On appeal, Abdi argued the court erred because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and as a result his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Specifically, Abdi argued he would not have entered a plea of guilty had he been properly advised on the virtual certainty of deportation. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Abdi v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Brandon Schweitzer appealed from a jury verdict and a criminal judgment convicting him of aggravated assault. In 2019, Schweitzer used his cane to hit the victim's arm, fracturing it. Schweitzer argued that by misplacing his cane in evidence, the State violated the Brady rule and his due process rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the Brady rule did not apply because Schweitzer alleged the State lost his case, not that the State suppressed it because it was favorable to him. The Court found Schweitzer did not meet his burden to prove the State acted in bad faith when it lost the cane, nor was there evidence the police consistently lost evidence. He claimed the State was merely “negligent in its duty to keep evidence safe and secure.” The district court found no evidence that the State deliberately destroyed the cane, as the standard required, or made it unavailable to thwart Schweitzer’s defense. Thus, Schweitzer failed to show the State acted in bad faith. Therefore, the State did not violate Schweitzer’s due process rights when it lost the cane. Judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schweitzer" on Justia Law

The State appealed from an order of dismissal after the district court dismissed conspiracy charges against Kristen Howard and Oshaya Watkins for lack of probable cause. The State charged Howard and Watkins with conspiracy to commit burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, both class C felonies. Kelly recorded a conversation on her phone that she had with Howard and Watkins at their workplace in Minot. Howard supervised Kelly and Watkins and called them in on their day off for this meeting. Howard and Watkins were speaking when Kelly arrived. Howard told Kelly that Howard’s husband was having an affair with “Jane Doe,” a service member in the U.S. Air Force. Howard allegedly planned to get back at Doe for having the affair with Howard’s husband. The three would then take Doe drinking in Minot and slip her a drug. Watkins was supposed to get Doe’s keys, and Howard would then go back to Doe’s apartment and “plant paraphernalia and drug items.” The apparent purpose of drugging Doe and planting items was to get Doe in trouble with the Air Force. Howard told Kelly and Watkins she had a drug they could use. After the conversation ended, Kelly reported it to the Ward County Sheriff’s Office. A deputy contacted Howard’s husband, who confirmed he had an affair with Doe. The deputy also spoke to Doe, who said she received text messages about meeting up with others that evening. However, the person texting Doe told Doe her name was Mandy, and the phone number did not come back to Howard or Watkins. No meeting took place. After a preliminary hearing, the district court dismissed the charges without prejudice for lack of probable cause. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the trial court erred when it found no evidence establishing probable cause that Howard and Watkins committed an overt act to effect the alleged conspiracy. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Howard" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice a charge of gross sexual imposition against Donald Mitchell, arguing the court erred in finding that the testimony submitted was insufficient for a finding of probable cause. At the preliminary hearing, Officer Brian Williams was the only witness. He was not the investigating officer, and before the preliminary hearing, he had not had any contact with Mitchell. The basis for Officer Williams’ testimony was his familiarity with a report prepared by another officer. He testified there was video evidence and that he had been told showed sexual intercourse between Mitchell and the alleged victim. Officer Williams also testified that the alleged victim was under the age of 15 at the time of the incident. The district court concluded that there was not probable cause because the officer did not have first-hand knowledge and he “failed to give any type of an assertive ID.” The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that in a preliminary hearing, the State was not required to prove with absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, but rather need only produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. The Court Found the State presented testimony there was a video obtained from the alleged victim showing Mitchell engaging in sexual intercourse with the alleged victim, and that she was 14 years old at the time. Although the testifying officer had not personally viewed the video, his testimony contained sufficient information to establish probable cause to believe that Mitchell had engaged in a sexual act with a victim less than 15 years old. View "North Dakota v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

James Black appealed following his conditional guilty plea to ten counts of possession of certain materials prohibited, class C felonies. Black argued the district court was required to suppress evidence obtained during an unreasonable search following an improper initial entry into his home. Black also argued the trial court was required to suppress evidence obtained during a subsequent search of his home pursuant to a search warrant that lacked probable cause. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the initial search was not unreasonable and the subsequent search warrant was valid. Therefore, judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Black" on Justia Law