Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Akeem Foster was convicted by jury of Terrorizing and Carrying a Concealed Weapon. Foster contended on appeal he was denied a fair trial because he was asked during cross-examination if other witnesses were lying and because the prosecutor expressed personal beliefs about the evidence during closing arguments. Foster also argued there was insufficient evidence to convict him of either charge. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Foster’s conviction for Carrying a Concealed Weapon, but reversed his conviction for Terrorizing. The Court found Foster was improperly asked to provide an opinion on the veracity and credibility of the State’s witnesses. The improper questioning was prejudicial and denied Foster a fair trial on the terrorizing charge. View "North Dakota v. Foster" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota appealed a district court order denying its motion to resume prosecution against Matthew Dahl and dismissing the case. In December 2014, the State charged Dahl with two counts of theft. Dahl did not appear on the charges until he was arrested on a bench warrant in February 2017. In mid-April 2017, the State mailed Dahl a pretrial diversion agreement. Dahl signed and returned the notarized agreement dated May 3, 2017. On May 9, 2017, the state’s attorney signed and filed the agreement with the district court, and the court approved the agreement the same day. Under the agreement, the State agreed to suspend prosecution for “two years from the date of execution” conditioned on Dahl’s timely payment of restitution. Dahl failed to make minimum monthly restitution payments. On June 6, 2019, the State moved to resume prosecution, alleging Dahl violated the pretrial diversion agreement by his non-payment. The district court held a hearing on the State’s motion in August 2019. The court concluded the pretrial agreement was executed when Dahl signed it on May 3, 2017. The court then denied the State’s motion to resume prosecution as untimely under N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.2(d)(2), and dismissed the complaint against Dahl. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court erred in determining the State’s motion was untimely, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Dahl" on Justia Law

Russell Craig appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to murder. In 2006, Craig was charged with murder. A year later, he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Craig testified when he arrived at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DOCR) he received a case plan stating he was eligible for parole in 20 years based on his life expectancy of 67 years less his then-current age of 44. In 2007 Craig wrote a letter requesting reduction of his sentence. In the letter Craig wrote the district court “Currently on a life sentence [I] have to [s]erve 85 [percent] of 30 years. I would be able to see the p[a]role board in 26.5 years . . . .” The court treated the letter as a motion for reduction of sentence and denied the requested relief. In 2017, the district court clerk sent Craig a letter regarding a statutory change requiring a calculation of life expectancy for life sentences with the possibility of parole. In 2018, Craig filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he believed he was eligible for parole after 20 years as outlined on his DOCR case plan which calculated his remaining life expectancy at 23 years, and not 85 percent of his remaining life expectancy of 33.8 years under the State’s calculation based on N.D. Sup.Ct. Admin. R. 51. Craig argues his sentence was illegal, the district court violated the prohibition on ex post facto punishment, and the district court erred by denying Craig’s motion to withdraw his plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence established Craig understood his plea deal, including that he had to serve a minimum of 30 years less reduction for good conduct. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a manifest injustice did not exist. View "North Dakota v. Craig" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Krogstad was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition on a six-year-old victim. Krogstad argued on appeal that: (1) admission of video of the victim’s forensic interview violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation; (2) the district court abused its discretion in admitting the video under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24); and (3) there was insufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Krogstad" on Justia Law

Frank West appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. West moved to suppress evidence alleging it was obtained during an unconstitutional search. The district court denied his motion holding the search was a valid probationary search and West lost his opportunity to seek suppression because he did not object at the time of the search. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. West" on Justia Law

Mohamed Awad appealed a district court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to a charge of knowingly voting when not qualified to do so. On appeal, Awad argued the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea because he was not adequately advised under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b) of the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty, and because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "North Dakota v. Awad" on Justia Law

T.P.-G. appealed the termination of her parental rights. On appeal, T.P.-G. argued she was denied due process and the juvenile court erred by denying her request to appear by telephone. A petition for involuntary termination of parental rights to a child, A.P.D.S.P.-G., was filed in the juvenile court. After a trial date was set, the mother, T.P.-G, filed a request to appear by phone because she lived in Wisconsin. The court denied the request. At trial, counsel stated T.P.-G. wished to contest the termination, regardless of whether she was able to attend the trial. Counsel stated T.P.-G. regretted being unable to attend, but T.P.-G. was saving her money to travel to see A.P.D.S.P.-G. for his birthday. After trial, the juvenile court found A.P.D.S.P.-G. was a deprived and abandoned child and terminated T.P.-G.’s parental rights to the child. Finding no due process violation, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed termination. View "Interest of A.P.D.S.P.-G." on Justia Law

Alex Eggleston appealed a district court’s amended judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Eggleston argued there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of murder. Eggleston also contended his sentence was illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51, which applied to his sentencing, were unconstitutionally vague, and because the district court improperly calculated his life expectancy. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s amended judgment in part, reverse in part, and remand for recalculation of Eggleston’s life expectancy. The Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in dismissing Eggleston’s motion for an acquittal because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Eggleston of murder and for the jury to conclude he was not acting in self-defense. Thus, the district court’s judgment of conviction was affirmed. However, the district court referenced an incorrect life table to compute Eggleston’s remaining life expectancy, thus, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s amended judgment, and remanded to the district court for a proper computation of Eggleston’s remaining life expectancy consistent with N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51. View "North Dakota v. Eggleston" on Justia Law

In early April 2019, Berthold Police Chief Allen Schmidt and Reserve Officer Greg Pinske stopped a car driven by Richard Cook for an unilluminated license plate. At the time of the stop, Pinske was not a licensed peace officer. Officer Pinske approached the car and obtained Cook’s driver’s license. Officer Pinske returned to the squad car with Cook’s license. Officer Pinske did not report to Chief Schmidt that he observed any suspicious behavior by Cook during the initial encounter. Officer Pinske ran a records check using Cook’s driver’s license, which revealed Cook had a 2016 drug conviction. At that point, Chief Schmidt took over the traffic stop. Chief Schmidt approached Cook’s vehicle and explained to Cook that he was performing drug interdiction that evening. Chief Schmidt asked Cook if he could search his car. Cook refused. Chief Schmidt then ordered Cook out of the car so he could perform a canine sniff around the car. The canine alerted to drugs in the car; Cook would ultimately be arrested and charged with several offenses. The State of North Dakota appealed after a district court granted Cook's motion suppressing evidence from the initial stop. Because the district court properly concluded Chief Schmidt’s seizure of Cook was not justified by reasonable suspicion, the Supreme Court affirmed suppression. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

Lekemia D’Andre Caster appealed from a district court order summarily denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2015, Caster pleaded guilty to two counts of child neglect or abuse and was sentenced to eighteen months’ probation. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court failed to explain its reasoning in its order. The matter was therefore remanded for further proceedings. View "Caster v. North Dakota" on Justia Law