Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Joshua Taylor appealed after a jury found him guilty of refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. Throughout the proceedings, Taylor represented himself and maintained that a video from the arresting officer's patrol vehicle would establish he stopped at the stop sign. The record did not include a written request for discovery by Taylor, but in his appellate brief he claimed he requested the audio and video recordings from the state's attorney's office and was ultimately told the materials were unrecoverable. In response to a district court inquiry about the status of discovery at a pretrial dispositional conference, Taylor indicated "[i]t sounds like what I was waiting on is unrecoverable," and he moved to dismiss the charge for "lack of evidence." He argued the arresting officer did not have a valid reason for the initial traffic stop and, as a result, the officer's subsequent requests for an onsite screening test and a chemical test were invalid. Taylor thereafter requested a jury instruction under N.D.C.C. 39-20-14(1), which authorized a law enforcement officer to request an onsite screening test if the officer "has reason to believe that the individual committed a moving traffic violation . . . and in conjunction with the violation . . . the officer has, through the officer's observations, formulated an opinion that the individual's body contains alcohol." The district court provided the jury with preliminary instructions, including an instruction on the essential elements of the charge of refusing a chemical test. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined there was sufficient evidence establishing that Taylor drove his vehicle on a road in Richland County and that he refused to submit to the Intoxilyzer test. The Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss. View "North Dakota v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In April 2017, Deputy Taylor Schiller was patrolling in an area north of Rugby, North Dakota, looking for a brown or tan Ford SUV that had been reported stolen. Deputy Schiller saw a vehicle matching that description. The SUV was actually maroon, but Deputy Schiller testified it initially appeared to be tan because it was covered with dirt and road dust. This vehicle pulled over and came to a stop without a signal to stop from Deputy Schiller. Deputy Schiller pulled over as well, exited his squad car, and attempted to contact the driver. Before he made contact with the driver, the SUV drove away. Deputy Schiller was unable to read the license plate number of the SUV at that time. Deputy Schiller returned to his car and activated his emergency lights. After the SUV again pulled over, Deputy Schiller exited his vehicle to make contact with the driver. Prior to making contact, he read the license plate number and noted that it did not match the license plate number of the stolen SUV. As he continued to approach the vehicle, Deputy Schiller recognized the driver as defendant Sandon Erickson. Because of their prior contacts, he knew Erickson had a suspended license. Deputy Schiller also saw an open case of Keystone Light beer in the front-seat passenger side of Erickson's vehicle. He then informed Erickson that he had stopped him pursuant to a stolen vehicle investigation. Deputy Schiller testified he could detect the odor of alcohol, and he arrested Erickson for driving under the influence. Erickson moved to suppress evidence obtained after the deputy read the plate and ruled out the vehicle as stolen. The district court denied Erickson's motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that extension of the stop for an explanation did not transform the stop into an unconstitutional seizure. View "North Dakota v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Jessica Broom appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Bismarck Police Officers Jones and Girodat were on patrol, stopped at a railroad crossing waiting for a train to pass. The officers checked the license plate of the red 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix in front of them. The license plate check revealed the car was stolen, and once the train passed, the officers stopped the vehicle. Because the stop was a "felony, high-risk" stop, the officers approached the stolen vehicle with their handguns out. Officer Jones approached the driver's side. Officer Girodat approached the passenger side. The officers repeatedly instructed the occupants to get their hands up, and the driver complied immediately. The passenger, who the officers recognized from previous drug arrests as Jessica Broom, did not comply with the officers' orders. Broom moved side to side in the vehicle, made furtive movements in the passenger compartment, and did not put her hands up. Officer Jones took the driver into custody while Officer Girodat detained Broom after removing her from the vehicle. Other officers arrived at the scene and a female officer, Officer Gallagher, approached as Broom was being handcuffed. Officers Jones and Girodat told Officer Gallagher that Broom was known to conceal items in her orifices, had not complied with commands, and she appeared to be moving around in the vehicle after the stop. As Officer Gallagher conducted a pat-down search of Broom's person, she felt a large, soft bulge in Broom's bra which Broom claimed was cash. Officer Gallagher retrieved the money from the bra to verify Broom's claim. In addition to a wad of money, Officer Gallagher discovered a baggie filled with several other baggies, a small glass vial, and a rolled-up ten dollar bill. Officer Gallagher put Broom in the back of her police car and placed her under arrest. In response to her motion to suppress the evidence from that search, the district court determined: "the uncertainty of what Broom was concealing, together with the facts that Broom was discovered in a stolen vehicle, that Broom had failed to comply with their lawful commands and continued to make furtive actions after being directly told to stop doing the same, her extreme anxiety and nervousness, in addition to the officer's knowledge of Broom's criminal history and ability to furtively conceal items on and in her body, they had reasonable grounds to search for possible weapons and to determine what was concealed in her bra." The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that the search of Broom, while she was handcuffed, away from the vehicle, with a "soft" or "squishy" bulge in her bra was not enough to suggest it was "of the size and density that might be a weapon justifying a more intrusive search." The Court therefore concluded the police officer's invasive search of Broom's person violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, section 8. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Broom" on Justia Law

Courtney Krueger appealed a judgment affirming a decision of the Department of Transportation suspending his driving privileges for two years. Because the Traill County sheriff's deputy had jurisdiction to make the arrest in Grand Forks County and Krueger's statutory rights and constitutional rights were not violated by the deputy's administration of three breath tests, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Krueger v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

In 2007, Tilmer Everett was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. In August 2015, the district court barred Everett from future filings without the court's permission. Everett appealed a district court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief based on alleged newly discovered evidence. Everett argued the district court erred in denying his petition and denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. Because Everett was subject to an order prohibiting him from filing new or additional post-conviction relief claims, the North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court's current order as denying Everett leave to file additional motions. The Court held orders denying leave to file were not appealable. Therefore, the Court dismissed Everett's appeal. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Joshua Cook appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of heroin, possession of methadone, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence after proper foundation was laid, the court did not abuse its discretion by not granting a departure from the mandatory minimum sentence, and the court did not err in considering Cook's prior convictions when sentencing. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

Richie Wilder appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and from an order partially granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Wilder argued his conviction had to be reversed and he was entitled to a new trial because his constitutional right to remain silent was violated by the State's improper comments during closing argument. He alternatively argued his sentence was illegal and should be amended because the district court erred by ordering him to have no contact with his children until they turn 18 years old. A comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The statutory sentencing provisions did not authorize the sentencing court to order no contact as part of a prison sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to Wilder's conviction, reversed the judgment as to his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Wilder" on Justia Law

In 2015, Amira Gunn and Calvin Till communicated in private conversations on MeetMe.com, a social networking website. Gunn and Till exchanged more than 700 messages between November 11 and 13. In a portion of the conversations, Gunn gave explicit and lewd instructions to Till on how to groom and sexually assault his young daughter and how to abduct and sexually assault Till's two neighbor children. During an interview with police, Gunn admitted to having the conversations with Till, acknowledging she knew of Till's sexual fetish for children including his own daughter. Gunn stated she believed Till's daughter was approximately six years old. Gunn characterized the conversations with Till as role-playing. Gunn was ultimately convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). At trial, a police detective testified he believed the initial conversations between Gunn and Till involved role-playing. The detective testified he believed the role-playing eventually ceased and Gunn and Till reassumed their own identities. The detective testified that later in the conversations Till relayed to Gunn that he was sexually assaulting his daughter in real-time. Gunn argued on appeal of her conviction and sentence there was no evidence of a victim in this case: because Till's daughter was not present during the online conversations and that the neighbor children could have been imaginary, thus no victim. Gunn also claimed that since Till did not commit the crime of gross sexual imposition, there was no evidence that Gunn aided him in any way. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in this matter, and affirmed Gunn’s conviction and sentence. View "North Dakota v. Gunn" on Justia Law

Harold Olson appealed a district court order affirming the North Dakota Department of Transportation's ("Department") revocation of his driving privileges for two years, following an arrest for driving under the influence. The revocation of driving privileges for refusal to submit to chemical testing requires a valid arrest; in the absence of authority from Congress, the State lacks criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-member Indians on tribal land. Whether an officer has jurisdiction to arrest depends on the law of the place where the arrest is made. Olson argued the deputy lacked the authority to arrest him on tribal land and that a valid arrest was a prerequisite to revocation of his driving privileges. Absent a valid arrest, Olson argued the revocation order was not in accordance with the law. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the deputy lacked authority to arrest Olson, a non-member Indian, on Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation tribal land. The Court therefore reversed the district court's order affirming the Department's revocation of Olson's driving privileges and reinstated Olson's driving privileges. View "Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Steven Sauter appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to criminal vehicular homicide, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood-alcohol test. Sauter argued there was not sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision that exigent circumstances permitted the warrantless blood-alcohol test. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the warrantless blood-alcohol test was authorized under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, and thus affirmed the trial court’s denial of Sauter’s suppression motion. View "North Dakota v. Sauter" on Justia Law