Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Abdiwali Mohamud was convicted by jury of aggravated assault - domestic violence, interference with telephone during an emergency call, and terrorizing. On appeal, Mohamud argued the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for unnecessary delay, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the three charges, and he was given an illegal sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed judgment denying Mohamud’s motion to dismiss, concluded there was sufficient evidence to convict Mohamud of the three charges, and found the no-contact order issued by the district court to be a condition of probation. View "North Dakota v. Mohamud" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting post-conviction relief and reducing the sentence of Julie Roubideaux Lavallie from a twenty-year term of imprisonment to a ten-year term. In 2017, Lavallie pleaded guilty to a third delivery offense of methamphetamine and she was sentenced to the mandatory minimum twenty-year sentence consistent with the then applicable law. Prior to Lavallie pleading guilty, the legislature had reduced the mandatory sentence from twenty years to ten years for a third delivery of methamphetamine offense. However, she pleaded guilty, was sentenced, and the judgment was entered before August 1, 2017, the effective date of the legislative change. On March 19, 2018, Lavallie filed a request for post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(f), arguing the modification of the mandatory sentence was a significant change in the law which, in the interest of justice, should be applied retroactively. The district court issued findings and an order granting Lavallie post-conviction relief. Because Lavallie’s sentence was final before the change to the statute took effect, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in reducing her sentence. View "Lavallie v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2017, the State of North Dakota charged John Hamre with two counts of simple assault on a peace officer, one count of preventing arrest, and one count of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. The charges related to incidents on June 5, 2017, when Fargo Police Detective Phil Swan stopped a vehicle driven by Hamre for expired license plates and Hamre drove away from the scene of the stop after surrendering his driver’s license to Detective Swan, and on June 15, 2017, when Detectives Swan and Brent Malone approached Hamre at a Fargo storage unit and an altercation occurred. Hamre argued on appeal he was denied his state and federal constitutional rights to a speedy trial, he was denied an evidentiary hearing on his motion to dismiss, and the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Hamre" on Justia Law

Jonathan Guthmiller appealed a criminal judgment after he pled guilty to luring a minor by computer. In April 2017 the State charged Guthmiller with luring a minor by computer after an investigation uncovered inappropriate sexual messages and photographs exchanged on the social media platform Snapchat between Guthmiller and a fifteen-year-old. Guthmiller argued the district court abused its discretion when denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and erred by failing to advise him of a mandatory period of probation. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

Travis Morsette appealed a judgment entered upon a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded there was not reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, it reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings to allow Morsette to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Morsette" on Justia Law

Shaun Ebach appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer’s decision to suspend Ebach’s driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Ebach argued the administrative hearing officer erred by admitting invalid chemical breath test records and by making result-oriented findings of fact, and that he was entitled to attorney fees and costs. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the test record was properly admitted, and a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded the administrative hearing officer’s finding that the officer who administered the Intoxilyzer test ascertained a 20-minute waiting period prior to administering the test was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. View "Ebach v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Jared Nikle appealed a criminal judgment entered after the district court found him guilty of actual physical control while under the influence in violation of Fargo Municipal Code 08-0310. On appeal, Nikle argued he was entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Nikle failed to meet his burden in raising the affirmative defense, and therefore affirmed the criminal judgment. View "City of Fargo v. Nikle" on Justia Law

Aaron Cockfield appealed dismissal of his petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the City of Fargo to reinstate him as an employee. Cockfield was employed by the City’s Solid Waste Department. In 2017, Cockfield was asked to perform a specific task within the scope of his employment. Cockfield refused to do it. Cockfield’s acting route supervisor, Shawn Eckre, approached Cockfield to talk about it. Cockfield was seated when Eckre approached, Cockfield stood up and pushed Eckre, and the push caused Eckre to fall against a wall. Cockfield was informed his conduct violated City policy, including the workplace violence policy. Cockfield was given an opportunity to provide an explanation of the incident. Cockfield did not deny refusing to perform the requested work, and he admitted he had pushed Eckre. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ludlum advised Cockfield the City was terminating his employment. Cockfield was told the reason for his termination, and he was provided with written notice of the termination. The Fargo Civil Service Commission upheld the termination. Following a hearing, the City Commission upheld the termination. Cockfield argues the district court abused its discretion by concluding he was provided with adequate pre-termination due process. The North Dakota Supreme Court disagreed with Cockfield's contentions, and affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing his request for mandamus relief. View "Cockfield v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

David Laverdure appealed a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. Relying on information from a concerned citizen and a “source of information” about short term traffic and potential heroin distribution, a Fargo detective took part in a garbage search at Laverdure’s residence on July 11, 2017. The searched garbage cans had been placed on the street in front of the residence in a City of Fargo container for the residence’s usual garbage pickup day. The garbage contained two sealed grocery bags and a sealed trash bag. A search of the bags revealed a broken glass pipe with methamphetamine residue, a small clear bag containing white powdery residue, and four used hypodermic syringes. the detective applied for a search warrant for Laverdure’s residence. In his application and affidavit in support of the search warrant, the detective described the two tips he received and the results of the garbage search. The affidavit did not state if anyone had observed the garbage container being placed on the street. The affidavit also did not state if the garbage contained mail or other items connecting it to Laverdure or the residence. The magistrate issued the search warrant. While executing the warrant, narcotics and related paraphernalia were found. Laverdure was arrested. The district court denied the suppression motion, finding sufficient probable cause existed for the search warrant. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court's denial of Laverdure's suppression motion and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Laverdure" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order finding Michael Brewer had received ineffective assistance of counsel and granting him a new trial. Brewer was convicted of two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition (“GSI”). He appealed the judgment of conviction, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Both victims of the GSI counts, J.L. and G.H., were minors. Three interviews were received into evidence: one interview given by G.H. regarding a separate incident occurring at the home of Brewer and G.H.’s aunt, Brewer’s girlfriend, prior to the pool incident; and two interviews regarding the charged incident - one from each of the minor children about interactions Brewer had with them in a hotel pool. In the interview about the home incident, G.H. stated Brewer had placed his hand on her buttocks inside her pants but outside her underwear. At trial, Brewer’s attorney did not object to evidence that was likely inadmissible under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b). The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the trial attorney’s failure to object was not simply a trial tactic. Brewer’s attorney testified in the postconviction hearing that he did not object because he “felt that [he] had adequately formed a record in the hearing on the motion itself [and] did not need to raise it.” The Court found that statement admitted a legal error that was below an objective standard of reasonableness. Beyond the intentional failure to object, the attorney stated affirmatively “no objection” when the State offered the 404(b) interview. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting postconviction relief on both GSI convictions because both were subject to the same prejudice that Rule 404(b) was formulated to protect against. View "Brewer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law