Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

John Casson appealed a criminal judgment entered after his conditional plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Casson arged the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him and unlawfully seized him by stating a K-9 unit would be called to complete a “sniff” of Casson’s vehicle. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that although Casson was seized, sufficient reasonable suspicion existed to detain Casson. The district court judgment was affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Casson" on Justia Law

In 2018, a district court referee entered two temporary disorderly conduct restraining orders against Donna Kenny, which were sought by two of her neighbors. The neighbors lived in the same five-unit condominium complex. A deputy sheriff served Kenny with the orders on the same day. The orders prohibited Kenny from having any physical contact with or coming within 100 feet of the two neighbors. A hearing on the temporary orders was scheduled for October 8, 2018. On September 28, 2018, Kenny approached the two neighbors at a backyard fire to ask who had parked in her spot in the common parking lot of the condominium complex. According to the neighbors, they advised Kenny she was not allowed to speak to them. Both neighbors testified that Kenny replied with either “shove it up your ass” or “stick it up your ass.” The neighbors called the police, and Kenny was arrested for violating the restraining orders. The North Dakota Supreme Court found N.D.C.C. 12.1-31.2-01(5) did not violate Kenny’s constitutional right to due process, N.D.C.C. 12.1-31.2-01 was not unconstitutionally overbroad, and sufficient evidence existed to convict her of violating the disorderly conduct restraining orders. View "North Dakota v. Kenny" on Justia Law

Kanakai Poulor was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. After review of his appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the State did not violate the Confrontation Clause when it presented a video recorded forensic interview with the 8-year old minor complainant; the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the complainant’s out-of-court statements about sexual abuse into evidence; and sufficient evidence supported the conviction for gross sexual imposition. View "North Dakota v. Poulor" on Justia Law

In 2014, Lorry Van Chase was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. He appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the conviction was affirmed. In 2016, Chase applied for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the application, making findings on each specific allegation of ineffective assistance. Chase appealed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief again to the Supreme Court, and the order was summarily affirmed based on Chase’s failure to supply a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. In 2018, Chase filed a N.D.R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, seeking relief from the order denying him post-conviction relief. In 2019, relief was again denied, finding Chase’s motion was actually a second application for post-conviction relief, and therefore barred by res judicata and misuse of process. The Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in treating Chase’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive application for post-conviction relief. However, the Court found summary dismissal of Chase’s original application for post-conviction relief was not appropriate, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings as to that point. The Court determined all other issues raised were without merit or otherwise unnecessary to its opinion here. View "Chase v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In October 2013, a jury found Sean Kovalevich guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of corruption of a minor. The conviction resulted from sexual acts occurring in 2012 at the Canad Inn in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Kovalevich was sentenced to 30 years in prison and 10 years of supervised probation. Kovalevich appealed and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Arguing on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Kovalevich argued the district court erred in summarily dismissing: (1) a motion for relief from an order denying an application for post-conviction relief; and (2) an application for post-conviction relief on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The court concluded Kovalevich could have raised the arguments presented in his motion and application in earlier proceedings. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kovalevich v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jessica Nelson appealed after she was sentenced to three years in jail for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver methamphetamine. She argued on appeal the district court erred in denying her request to withdraw her guilty plea, and erred by considering a prior dismissed deferred imposition of sentence when imposing the mandatory minimum sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that a completed deferred imposition of sentence that resulted in the dismissal of charges may not be used to enhance a sentence unless the State sufficiently pleads and proves the underlying case. The Court reversed judgment and remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Bradley Joe Morales appealed a district court criminal judgment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend. Morales argued a motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, and parts of his trial were closed to the public without the pre-closure analysis required by Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984), thus violating his right to a public trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred and reversed judgment. The matter was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Morales" on Justia Law

Amanda Dockter appealed an order revoking her probation. Dockter was initially charged with corruption or solicitation of a minor in Eddy County, North Dakota. In November 2017, the State amended the charge against Dockter to include abuse or neglect of a child, a class C felony. On November 9, 2017, Dockter pled guilty in Eddy County to the child neglect charge and was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a term of one year and one day with 336 days suspended and placed on supervised probation for a period of five years. Dockter was ordered to report to the Stutsman County Correctional Facility for the period of confinement on January 1, 2018. She finished serving her 30-day jail sentence on the child neglect charge on January 28, 2018. In January 2019, Dockter’s probation officer petitioned to revoke her probation, alleging she had tested positive for methamphetamine on November 30 and December 22, 2017, and was convicted of five other criminal charges in Stutsman County on January 14, 2019, including child neglect and felon in possession of a firearm. At a February 14, 2019 probation revocation hearing, Dockter admitted she engaged in the conduct alleged in the petition to revoke and argued about the disposition. The district court found she violated the conditions of her probation. The court issued an order revoking her probation and committing her to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for one year and one day with credit of 31 days for time served with supervised probation for five years. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order and remanded to the court to correct the period of supervised probation from five years to three years as required by N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-06.1(2). View "North Dakota v. Dockter" on Justia Law

Ross Thomas appealed after a jury found him guilty of terrorizing, a class C felony. Trial started on March 28, 2018. The following day, the State and defendant rested, and the case was submitted to the jury. At the end of the day, the jury sent a note to the court stating they had reached a decision on three counts, were hung on one count, and no further progress would be made. The court admonished the jury and ordered them to return on the following Monday, April 2, after a holiday weekend, to continue deliberations on the remaining count. On April 2, 2018, the jury reconvened to continue its deliberations. Before the jury reconvened, however, Thomas’s counsel raised specific allegations to the district court that Thomas had overheard non-jurors discussing the content of jury deliberations and juror decisions in a public setting in town. The court did not conduct a hearing on Thomas’s allegations at that time but stated it would “let [Thomas] challenge any verdict made in a subsequent motion after there’s notice and opportunity for both parties to be prepared.” After further deliberation, the jury subsequently returned not-guilty verdicts on the aggravated assault and reckless endangerment charges and returned a guilty verdict on the terrorizing charge. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the felonious restraint charge, and the court declared a mistrial on that charge. The district court sentenced Thomas on the terrorizing charge, and a criminal judgment was entered.The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Thomas a hearing on alleged juror communications with non-jurors, which were discovered and brought to the court’s attention while the jury was deliberating and were alleged to be related to matters on which the jury had deliberated and the jury’s decisions. The matter was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Thomas" on Justia Law

Spencer Norton appealed a district court’s criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him guilty of terrorizing. In November 2017, Norton was detained after being charged with arson. While detained, Norton communicated with his girlfriend through phone conversations and video visits. Norton was aware that both the video visits and the phone conversations were being recorded by law enforcement. During the phone conversations and the video visits, Norton made multiple threatening statements directed toward law enforcement and other individuals associated with his arson case. Norton also made threats that referenced the family members of law enforcement. Norton was charged with terrorizing as the result of his threats. Norton contended the offense of terrorizing required threats directed toward identified individuals and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Norton" on Justia Law