Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Michael Rivera appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of creating or possessing sexually expressive images, two counts of attempting to create or possess sexually expressive images, and six counts of surreptitious intrusion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err by sentencing Rivera to consecutive sentences. View "North Dakota v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Michael Rivera appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of creating or possessing sexually expressive images, two counts of attempting to create or possess sexually expressive images, and six counts of surreptitious intrusion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err by sentencing Rivera to consecutive sentences. View "North Dakota v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Aron Williams appeals from a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with Jennifer Williams. Aron and Jennifer were married in April 2015, have two minor children together, and resided in Jamestown. They separated in April 2016 and were in the process of obtaining a divorce in Stutsman County. After the separation, Jennifer moved to West Fargo. In June 2016, Jennifer filed for a temporary domestic violence protection order against Aron in Cass County, but the parties stipulated to dismissal of the order and the district court in the divorce action ordered that exchanges for Aron’s parenting time with one of the children occur at Rainbow Bridge in Moorhead, Minnesota. In December 2016, Jennifer moved to modify the provisions of an interim order on child support, attorney fees, spousal support, and parenting time in the Stutsman County divorce proceedings. In January 2017, the district court granted the motion and ordered exchanges of the children to occur at the West Fargo Police Department. On January 30, 2017, Jennifer filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Aron in Cass County, alleging he committed several acts intended to adversely affect her safety, security, and privacy. Although Jennifer testified about several acts of alleged disorderly conduct, the district court indicated the only incidents it would consider were those that occurred after the January 13, 2017, amended interim order was entered in the divorce action. Aron’s attorney argued that Aron's words constituted constitutionally protected free speech, and the parties argued the constitutional issue before the court. The trial court found reasonable grounds to believe Aron’s actions constituted disorderly conduct and granted the restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred by failing to address the constitutional issues Aron raised. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for the district court to make a new determination as to whether a disorderly conduct restraining order should issue on the basis of any remaining conduct. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Aron Williams appeals from a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with Jennifer Williams. Aron and Jennifer were married in April 2015, have two minor children together, and resided in Jamestown. They separated in April 2016 and were in the process of obtaining a divorce in Stutsman County. After the separation, Jennifer moved to West Fargo. In June 2016, Jennifer filed for a temporary domestic violence protection order against Aron in Cass County, but the parties stipulated to dismissal of the order and the district court in the divorce action ordered that exchanges for Aron’s parenting time with one of the children occur at Rainbow Bridge in Moorhead, Minnesota. In December 2016, Jennifer moved to modify the provisions of an interim order on child support, attorney fees, spousal support, and parenting time in the Stutsman County divorce proceedings. In January 2017, the district court granted the motion and ordered exchanges of the children to occur at the West Fargo Police Department. On January 30, 2017, Jennifer filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Aron in Cass County, alleging he committed several acts intended to adversely affect her safety, security, and privacy. Although Jennifer testified about several acts of alleged disorderly conduct, the district court indicated the only incidents it would consider were those that occurred after the January 13, 2017, amended interim order was entered in the divorce action. Aron’s attorney argued that Aron's words constituted constitutionally protected free speech, and the parties argued the constitutional issue before the court. The trial court found reasonable grounds to believe Aron’s actions constituted disorderly conduct and granted the restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred by failing to address the constitutional issues Aron raised. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for the district court to make a new determination as to whether a disorderly conduct restraining order should issue on the basis of any remaining conduct. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Shawn Montgomery appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to a charge of driving under the influence. Montgomery argued the State violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search by compelling his consent to a blood test. Voluntary consent to a warrantless blood test is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, for which the State bears the burden of proof. A district court's decision on a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

When considering whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a container found within an automobile, courts will look at whether the individual: (1) asserts ownership of the container; (2) asserts ownership of the vehicle; (3) testifies or presents evidence establishing possessory interest in the container; (4) was present at the time of the search; and (5) whether the container itself has identifying markings or if the contents within have identifying characteristics. Casey Adams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Police received a report of suspicious activity in a Grand Forks parking lot. The caller reported individuals moving backpacks from a Nissan into a Cadillac, among other suspicious behavior. Three officers responded to the scene. The officers testified they observed the individuals displaying odd behavior, consistent with drug use. One officer observed a blue container he believed to be drug paraphernalia inside the Cadillac, indicating he saw a crystal or powder substance on it and it was similar to a container used in a separate drug related call less than 24 hours prior. Three individuals were in the Cadillac and Adams was in the Nissan. No consent was given to search either vehicle. Based on the observation of the blue container in plain view, the officers searched the Cadillac and seized more than 80 items relating to drug use. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Adams' argument that the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not support the district court's probable cause finding was moot. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Adams' motion to suppress evidence because Adams failed to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpacks. View "North Dakota v. Adams" on Justia Law

Brenda Doll appealed a district court order denying her motion for reconsideration of a disorderly conduct restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Doll's motion for reconsideration. View "Kautzman v. Doll" on Justia Law

C.B. appealed a juvenile court order adopting a judicial referee's order finding C.B. failed to register as a sex offender. In June 2012, C.B. pled guilty to "assault IV with sexual motivation" in Washington state. The adjudication and disposition order did not require C.B. to register as a sex offender in Washington. In the fall of 2012, C.B. moved to North Dakota with his father. At the request of the juvenile court, C.B. registered as a sex offender in North Dakota in November 2013. In May 2015, C.B. updated his registration at the Bismarck Police Department. After updating his registration, an assistant Burleigh County state's attorney issued a juvenile petition to C.B. for committing the delinquent act of failure to register as a sex offender. The petition alleged C.B. failed to timely "alert law enforcement to a new job, a new place of residence, a telephone number or his facebook account." C.B. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing he should not be required to register. At an October 2015 hearing on the motion, an assistant attorney general testified C.B.'s assault IV with sexual motivation in Washington was equivalent to a class A misdemeanor sexual offense in North Dakota that required registration. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judicial referee stated he was dismissing the petition, and issued an order of dismissal. Shortly thereafter, the referee rescinded the order of dismissal, stating he decided the motion wrongly due to a legal error. The judicial referee provided notice to the parties the same day that they had the right to have the order reviewed by a juvenile court judge if the request was made within seven days. C.B. did not request review of the order. C.B. again moved to dismiss the petition in November 2015, arguing the judicial referee exceeded his authority when he rescinded the order dismissing the petition. The referee denied the motion. C.B. sought review of the referee's decision from the juvenile court. The juvenile court adopted the referee's decision denying the motion. C.B. filed another motion to dismiss in December 2015, arguing the State failed to give full faith and credit to the Washington order that did not require C.B. to register as a sex offender. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: although C.B. was not required to register as a sex offender in Washington, Full Faith and Credit does not prohibit North Dakota from requiring C.B. to register. View "Interest of C.B." on Justia Law