Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a Department hearing officer's decision to suspend Alexis Glaser's driving privileges for two years. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Glaser failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of the time of the accident on the report and notice, showing her chemical Intoxilyzer test was administered within two hours of driving. Furthermore, the Court concluded a reasoning mind could reasonably conclude Glaser drove or was in physical control of a motor vehicle within two hours of performance of a chemical test was supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record. The Court therefore reversed the judgment and reinstated the suspension of Glaser's driving privileges for two years. View "Glaser v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Steven Newark, Jr. appealed after a jury found him guilty of burglary, terrorizing, and criminal mischief. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Newark's motion for a continuance or a dismissal. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to call a police officer to testify in rebuttal and in delaying its ruling whether other officers would be allowed to testify in rebuttal. View "North Dakota v. Newark" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed a district court order denying his petition to correct his sentence or declare a "mistrial" based on his claim of prejudicial sentencing. A supervisory writ is issued rarely and cautiously only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rath's petition under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 because his sentence was not illegal. The Court treated his request on appeal, however, as a request for a writ of supervision based on the district court's oral pronouncement during his resentencing in 2012 for a felony that he would keep his "misdemeanor disposition." The Court concluded this was an appropriate case to exercise its discretionary supervisory jurisdiction. The Court remanded with instructions for the district court to direct the clerk of district court to change the disposition of this case to a misdemeanor under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-02(9). View "North Dakota v. Rath" on Justia Law

Ale Majetic appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Majetic argued his right to an impartial jury was violated when, after a 56-day continuance, the district court failed to inquire whether the jury had formed an opinion in the case or had been influenced by the media. He also argued the court abused its discretion in commenting on his expert witness's testimony. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not commit obvious error, and affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Majetic" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order granting Steven Helm's motion to dismiss a criminal prosecution against him for refusing to submit to a warrantless urine test incident to arrest. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the State could not criminally prosecute Helm for refusing to submit to the warrantless urine test incident to arrest. View "North Dakota v. Helm" on Justia Law

Robert Pulkrabek appealed the district court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of theft of property. Pulkrabek argued the district court erred when it did not tell the jury it had to unanimously agree on which theory of theft it believed he committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a jury was not required to unanimously agree upon which action the defendant committed under the subsections of N.D.C.C. 12.1.-23-02. View "North Dakota v. Pulkrabek" on Justia Law

Christian Von Ruden appealed after he was convicted of driving under the influence after entering a conditional guilty plea. Von Ruden argued evidence of the breath test records and checklists should have been excluded at trial because the arresting officer did not administer the test sequences in accordance with the approved method, and the officer deprived him of his limited statutory right to counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the officer "scrupulously" followed the approved method in administering the second breath test sequence and Von Ruden was not denied his limited statutory right to counsel. View "North Dakota v. Von Ruden" on Justia Law

Floyd Hyde appealed a criminal judgment after entering a conditional plea of guilty to three drug charges. In his plea, Hyde reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Hyde argued the district court erred in finding the warrantless entry of his home fell within the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded to allow him to withdraw his plea. View "North Dakota v. Hyde" on Justia Law

In North Dakota, an adult is guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity when: (1) with the intent to engage in commercial sexual activity with a minor; (2) the individual gives, agrees to give, or offers to give anything of value to a minor or another person; and (3) for the purpose of obtaining commercial sexual activity with a minor. Nicholas Davison, James Heily, Jr., and Jesse Janke appeal from criminal judgments, entered after bench trials on stipulated facts, finding them guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity in violation of N.D.C.C. 12.1-41-06(1)(a). The Defendants were each arrested as part of a multi-agency sting operation targeted at apprehending individuals paying, or attempting to pay, for sex with minors. The sting operation posted advertisements on the Internet, specifically in the "Casual Encounters" section of "Craigslist." The content of the advertisements in these cases sought sexual encounters, but did not claim to be posted by a minor. However, during communications with each of the Defendants, an undercover officer posing as a minor indicated to the Defendants she was a minor. In each of the communications, there were discussions of exchanging something of value for sexual services. Each of the Defendants arrived at the sting location set up at a hotel in Fargo, and each was arrested and charged with patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity. On appeal, the Defendants argue the district court erred by denying their motions for judgment of acquittal. The Defendants argued N.D.C.C. 12.1-41-06(1)(a) required the presence of a minor; because there was no minor involved in Defendants' cases, the Defendants argued the State cannot meet its burden of proof. The State argued N.D.C.C. 12.1-41-06(1)(a) did not require the presence of a minor as an essential element of the crime of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Defendants' motions for judgment of acquittal. View "North Dakota v. Davison" on Justia Law

Under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-08(1)(a), "directly related" and "direct result" require an immediate and intimate causal connection between the criminal conduct for which the defendant was convicted and the damages or expenses for which restitution is ordered. Mearlyse Carson appealed a restitution order entered following her guilty plea and conviction for possession of stolen property. The district court ordered her to pay restitution, which included restitution for other items stolen or damaged during a burglary for which she was not convicted. Carson appealed, asserting she should not have been required to pay restitution resulting from the burglary when she had been convicted only of possessing stolen property. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined there was no assertion that Carson's possessing the stolen rifles, ammunition, and tools, by itself, resulted in failure to recover the other items, an impounded vehicle, lawn chairs being left at the burglarized home, or damage to the trailer. The Supreme Court has held in the context of sustaining a criminal conviction of theft that "[u]nexplained possession of recently stolen property permits an incriminating implication." Precedents suggested such an inference be drawn in that context because the sufficiency of evidence was challenged, and the Court's review of the record was "to determine if there is competent evidence allowing the jury to draw an inference reasonably tending to prove guilt." No such evidence was presented here, and accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of restitution. View "North Dakota v. Carson" on Justia Law