Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Susan Franciere appealed a district court judgment granting the City of Mandan’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient service. In 2017, Franciere and her dog were attacked by a dog in Mandan. Days later, she went to the Mandan Police Department, asserted her rights under Article I, section 25 of the North Dakota Constitution, and requested a copy of the police report on the incident under the open records law. Franciere called the police department and was informed the dog was undergoing a 10-day rabies quarantine. Thereafter, Franciere sent a letter to the chief of police requesting the police report. On August 22, 2017, she received a phone call from a police lieutenant who told her she would not receive the report because the case was still active and no information would be released until the case was closed. In September 2017, she contacted the city attorney about the incident. Then in October, Franciere filed this action against the City, alleging violations of the North Dakota Constitution and the open records law. Franciere received a redacted report of the incident from the police department on November 1, 2017. On January 13, 2018, she received an unredacted report from the police department. On November 14, 2018, Franciere filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court declared Franciere’s action moot and dismissed it with prejudice. It declined to rule on Mandan’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. The North Dakota Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for determination of Mandan’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon reconsideration, the district court granted the City's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Franciere argued Mandan waived its personal jurisdiction claims, the district court improperly dismissed the case with prejudice, the district court erred when it denied her motion to compel discovery, and the district court judge was biased against her. The Supreme Court modified the judgment for dismissal without prejudice, and affirmed as modified. View "Franciere v. City of Mandan" on Justia Law

Richard Powley appealed after a jury found him guilty of three counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI). Powley was on parole at the time of his arrest. Detectives believed there was evidence of communications between Powley and the victim of the aggravated assault on Powley’s cell phone. As part of the warrantless search of Powley’s cell phone, detectives discovered videos of Powley sexually assaulting an adult woman. These videos led to the GSI charges. On appeal, Powley argued the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained the warrantless search of his cell phone. The North Dakota Supreme Court had held previously that warrantless searches of supervised probationers based on reasonable suspicion were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. "'By virtue of their status alone, parolees have 'everely diminished expectations of privacy.'" The Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Powley’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his cell phone because the search of Powley’s cell phone was not in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. View "North Dakota v. Powley" on Justia Law

Travis Yoney appealed a district court amended judgment after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder, burglary, reckless endangerment, and terrorizing. According to testimony at trial, in August 2018 Yoney fired a .22 caliber rifle into John and Jane Doe’s house. He then broke into the house and pointed the rifle at John Doe. John Doe tackled Yoney, and the rifle fired into the ceiling. Yoney argued on appeal that the jury convicted him of a non-cognizable offense, attempt to knowingly commit murder, and the State did not provide evidence he threatened to commit a crime. Further, he contended the jury gave an inconsistent, compromised verdict by finding him guilty of attempted murder and reckless endangerment. He claimed the evidence may support either charge individually, but it could not support the same conduct with different culpabilities for the same victim, John Doe. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Yoney's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Yoney" on Justia Law

The State appealed the suppression of evidence in criminal proceedings initiated against Jordan Selzler and Kelsey Jankowski. The criminal charges against Selzler and Jankowski stemmed from evidence gathered during the same traffic stop, the hearing on the motions to suppress evidence was held jointly, and the cases were consolidated for purposes of appeal. The State argued the district court incorrectly found the traffic stop was unlawful because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the suppression of the evidence gathered after the traffic stop. View "North Dakota v. Selzler" on Justia Law

Tara Soucy appealed after a jury found her guilty of child neglect. On appeal, Soucy argued the district court erred by refusing to take judicial notice of a related conviction of the children’s father. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to take judicial notice. Though the Court affirmed the conviction, it remanded for the trial court to correct the judgment to accurately reflect the statutory citation for child neglect. View "North Dakota v. Soucy" on Justia Law

Anthony Washington appealed a district court's judgment entered following Washington’s conditional guilty pleas to fleeing from a law enforcement officer and preventing arrest. Washington was stopped for speeding. During the traffic stop, at the request of the officer, Washington produced a Michigan driver’s license. While producing his driver’s license Washington informed the officer his license had recently been reinstated, explained the Michigan records may not have been up-to-date, and noted the records may not reflect the reinstatement of his license. After being informed Washington’s driving privileges were under suspension, the officer returned to Washington’s vehicle to place him under arrest for driving with a suspended license. Washington again tried to explain his belief his license was valid. After an unsuccessful attempt to convince the officer his license was valid, Washington fled the scene. Washington argued on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because his arrest was illegal. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Washington" on Justia Law

James McGowen, a/k/a James McGowan, appeals from the amended criminal judgment finding him guilty of two counts of simple assault on a corrections officer and ordering $1,855.31 in restitution. McGowen was brought from a holding cell at the Burleigh-Morton County Detention Center into the booking area. McGowen became angry and agitated. The two correctional officers walked around the corner to assist the booking officer, and one tried to restrain McGowen. The officer felt something hit him in the face and believed McGowen punched him. The other officer tackled McGowen to the ground, while McGowen was still attacking the first officer. On the ground, McGowan continued to flail and swing punches. McGowen argues evidence was insufficient to convict him, and the district court abused its discretion by continuing the restitution hearing, and by ordering $1,855.31 in restitution. View "North Dakota v. McGowen" on Justia Law

Joey Wayland appealed after he was convicted by jury of Theft of Property and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. Wayland contended his case should have been dismissed because his right to a speedy trial was violated by a continuance of his trial from March 11, 2019 to April 8, 2019. Wayland also contended the district court violated his right to remain silent by ordering him to submit to a mental health evaluation. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Wayland" on Justia Law

In June 2014, Rodney, Thomas, and Susan Brossart, as plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in North Dakota federal district court against Nelson County, North Dakota, and the sheriff and a deputy sheriff of Nelson County, as defendants. The Brossarts alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law. The federal district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court subsequently entered judgment against the Brossarts awarding defendants $8,153.08 in costs. The Brossarts did not appeal the judgment awarding costs to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants thereafter filed the federal judgment to the Nelson County clerk's office. Defendants' attorney served three sets of interrogatories in aid of execution of judgment, one for each of the three named plaintiffs, on the Brossarts’ attorney. Each set of interrogatories contained 73 identical questions. Subparts to the main questions contained in the interrogatories were separately numbered. The Brossarts’ were not personally served the interrogatories. However, on appeal the Brossarts acknowledge they were informed of the filing of the federal judgment. Because they believed the federal judgment was procedurally and substantively defective, the Brossarts refused to respond to the interrogatories. Additionally, there is nothing in the record indicating the Brossarts’ attorney represented them in the state court action prior to February 19. After the Brossarts’ attorney sent the February 19 letter, the parties’ attorneys continued to communicate regarding the interrogatories. Defendants moved to compel answers, but the Brossarts moved for relief from judgment, arguing the federal judgment was invalid and unenforceable because they were not provided proper notice the federal judgment had been filed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the federal judgment was entitled to full faith and credit, and the Brossarts did not raise any viable defense as to why the federal judgment was invalid or unenforceable. The Brossarts correctly asserted they were not initially provided notice of the filing of the foreign judgment pursuant to N.D.C.C. 28-20.1-03(2), but the Court found their justification for refusing to answer the interrogatories and their basis for their motion for relief from judgment were completely without merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Brossarts’ claims were frivolous and awarding attorney’s fees. View "Brossart, et al. v. Janke, et al." on Justia Law

Kevin Michel was convicted by jury of knowingly receiving stolen property. Jamestown Police began investigating theft of tires from Northwest Tire in October 2017. About ten months later, Thomas Melland and Andrew Heckelsmiller became suspects in the investigation. Heckelsmiller told police he had sold stolen tires to Michel. In August 2018, Detective LeRoy Gross spoke with Michel about the stolen tires. Michel acknowledged he had bought tires from Heckelsmiller and Melland. Michel also told Detective Gross he stopped buying tires from Heckelsmiller and Melland after seeing a Facebook post from Northwest Tire offering a $500 reward for information regarding stolen tires. Detective Gross told Michel, “There’s going to be a lot of restitution these two boys are going to have to come up with unless we can get some tires back.” Michel said he had sold several of the tires but still had some of them. Michel turned over seven new tires to Detective Gross. Representatives from Northwest Tire and J&L Service identified the tires as some of those stolen from their shops. During the jury’s deliberations, the jury submitted a note with written questions to the court. Michel argued on appeal the district court erred by not specifically answering the jury’s questions and instead referring them to the existing jury instructions. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment, except as to the award of restitution. The award was reversed because the district court awarded more than what was required to make the victims whole. The matter was remanded for a redetermination of restitution. View "North Dakota v. Michel" on Justia Law