Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ross Thomas appealed after a jury found him guilty of felonious restraint. In February 2017, the State charged Thomas with aggravated assault, felonious restraint, terrorizing, and reckless endangerment. The case proceeded to trial in March 2018. A jury convicted Thomas of terrorizing, and acquitted him of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. It did not reach a verdict on the felonious restraint charge. Soon thereafter, the State gave notice of its intent to retry Thomas for felonious restraint. Thomas’s second trial was continued and ultimately was held in April 2019. Thomas argued the district court abused its discretion in granting the State’s request for a continuance because the State did not move for a continuance and there was no good cause for a continuance. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no abuse of the district court's discretion, and no other reversible error. Therefore, it affirmed his conviction. View "North Dakota v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Corey Wickham was working as a rideshare driver when he allegedly stopped a passenger from exiting his automobile, kissed her on the mouth, put his hands down her pants, digitally penetrated her, and touched her breasts. He was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition. A jury found Wickham guilty on both counts. Wickham appealed his eventual convictions, arguing the district court erred by admitting expert opinion testimony. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Wickham" on Justia Law

Alexander Lail appealed from a criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of attempted murder. Lail argued there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdicts. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Lail" on Justia Law

Rodney Chisholm appeals from a district court order summarily dismissing his application for postconviction relief. Chisholm was convicted of murder in 2011 and sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. Chisholm filed his first application for postconviction relief in 2013. In that application, Chisholm alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court summarily denied Chisholm’s application, and he appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court again denied Chisholm’s application and he appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court the second time. In this case, the Supreme Court concluded Chisholm's his claim for ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel was barred under N.D.C.C. 29- 32.1-09(2), and his other claims were barred by res judicata. Therefore, the Court affirmed the summary dismissal of his postconviction relief application. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jim Wallitsch appeals from the amended judgment arguing the district court erred by not giving an instruction regarding a statement made by a potential juror during voir dire. Wallitsch was charged with aggravated assault and tampering with physical evidence. During voir dire potential jury members were asked if anyone had a problem being a fair and impartial juror. One potential juror, a Homeland Security agent, stated, “I’m fairly certain I’ve arrested your client before.” The person was excused from the panel, the exchange was not discussed further, and the jury subsequently found Wallitsch guilty on both counts. Specifically, Wallitsch argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court the district court obviously erred and reversal was required when, during voir dire, a Homeland Security agent said he previously arrested the defendant and no curative instruction was given to the venire or the jury. Finding the district court did not "obviously err" by not providing a curative instruction regarding the potential juror's comments, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Wallitsch" on Justia Law

David Mondragon appeals from conditional pleas of guilty to gross sexual imposition and sexual assault. The State filed an information charging Mondragon with class A felony gross sexual imposition and two counts of class C felony sexual assault. Mondragon waived his right to a preliminary hearing and not guilty pleas were entered on all counts. On June 12, 2018, Mondragon filed a request for a speedy trial. At the pretrial conference on July 17, 2018, Mondragon’s counsel suggested a trial date be set “and if we need a continuance, we can request it later.” A trial date was set for August 1, 2, and 3, 2018. Thereafter, in July, August, and December 2018, the State requested three continuances which the district court granted. Mondragon argues the district court erred by granting the State’s requests for continuances, claiming the court denied him his statutory right to a speedy trial. Determining the court's finding of good cause was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Mondragon’s right to a speedy trial was not violated by the continuances, and affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Mondragon" on Justia Law

Kerry Komrosky appealed a criminal judgment after entering a conditional plea of guilty to three drug-related charges. In his plea, Komrosky reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Komrosky argued the district court erred in finding the warrantless entry into his home fell within the emergency exception to the warrant requirement and the evidence seized was in plain view. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Komrosky" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appeals from a judgment reversing the decision of an administrative hearing officer revoking Corey Joseph Jesser’s driving privileges for 180 days. Jesser refused to take a sobriety test and was arrested for driving under the influence. The hearing officer found Peterson had reason to believe Jesser was involved in a traffic accident as the driver, Jesser’s body contained alcohol, and he refused to submit to the onsite screening test. The hearing officer found the arresting police officer had reasonable grounds to believe Jesser was driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The hearing officer found Jesser was arrested and refused to submit to the chemical breath test. The license was revoked for 180 days based on Jesser's refusal of the onsite screening and chemical tests. Notwithstanding these findings, the district court reversed the hearing officer's decision. Refusal of the screening test could have been cured by consenting to take the chemical test after arrest; Jesser argued a statutory opportunity to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to the chemical test was deprived. Whether the statutory right to counsel before chemical testing under N.D.C.C. 39-20-01 impacted the right to cure under N.D.C.C. 39-20-14 was a question of first impression for the North Dakota Supreme Court. After review, the Court determined the limited statutory right of a defendant to consult with an attorney before taking a chemical test attached only after arrest. The Court rejected the argument that a post-arrest limited statutory right to counsel created a pre-arrest right because an individual was deprived of a post-arrest remedy. The Court reversed the district court judgment and reinstated the hearing officer's decision revoking Jesser's driving privileges. View "Jesser v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Donald Edwardson appealed a judgment dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Edwardson was charged with failing to register as a sexual offender; the State alleged Edwardson had failed to register his temporary residence while he was residing at a hotel from March 1 through March 31, 2017. At Edwardson’s initial appearance he was informed of the minimum mandatory sentence for the offense. After a contested preliminary hearing, the district court found probable cause to bind the case over for further proceedings. Immediately after the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, there were brief discussions between counsel for the State and Edwardson’s attorney, followed by a brief discussion between Edwardson and his attorney. As a result of those discussions Edwardson decided to enter a plea of guilty to the charge. The parties informed the court they had reached an agreement, Edwardson was advised of his rights, he entered a guilty plea and he was sentenced. Edwardson argued he was entitled to post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the underlying criminal proceedings, he discovered new evidence justifying the withdrawal of his plea of guilty, the underlying criminal charge was unlawful, and he was not informed of the minimum mandatory sentence before he entered his plea of guilty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Edwardson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Chad Walker appealed an amended judgment that included an order to pay restitution. Walker pled guilty to theft for possession of a stolen motorcycle. The motorcycle owner filed a victim impact statement requesting restitution for the cost of repairing the motorcycle. A restitution hearing was held and an amended criminal judgment was entered, ordering Walker pay $2,410.69 in repairs for damage to the motorcycle. Walker argued he pled guilty to possession of stolen property and was not accused of stealing or damaging the motorcycle. He further argued the damages were not related to his criminal offense and were not a direct result of his criminal action. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined, after review of the trial court record, when returned, the motorcycle was physically damaged. Repairs included replacing multiple covers, two turn signals, fuel tank, and installing a missing heat shield. The Court found the damage to the motorcycle was directly related to the criminal offense, and it could have reasonably been inferred that damage was caused during possession of the stolen property. Therefore, the Court affirmed the restitution order. View "North Dakota v. Walker" on Justia Law