Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 804, it does not matter that the defendant may have had significantly less incentive to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary examination hearing than at the trial, the testimony is permissible at trial if it meets the requirements under the rule. If a prior consistent statement is to be admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the declarant must testify and be subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which it is being offered. Duane Azure, Jr., appealed a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. A deputy observed Yvette Belgarde lying on the floor in the living room when responding to a 911 call to the Azure residence. The deputy requested an ambulance to the residence and Belgarde was transported to the local emergency room. Her initial explanation to law enforcement and medical personnel about her injuries was that she fell on the deck. Approximately two weeks later, while in the hospital, Belgarde contacted law enforcement and stated her injuries were not caused by falling on the deck, but by Azure assaulting her. Belgarde was interviewed by Agent Allen Kluth of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Belgarde restated to Agent Kluth that Azure had assaulted her and that she was afraid to say anything at first. Azure was subsequently charged with aggravated assault. Prior to trial, Belgarde died from causes unrelated to the assault. Azure argued the district court abused its discretion by allowing two prior statements of the State's witness into evidence at trial. Because the district court abused its discretion in allowing the victim's prior statement to police into evidence under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded. View "North Dakota v. Azure" on Justia Law

A district court's decision on a motion for mistrial will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing the court abused its discretion or that a manifest injustice would occur. The cumulative effect of multiple errors may be productive of a manifest injustice which requires the district court to declare a mistrial. Brady Blotske appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition, felonious restraint, and terrorizing. During the testimony of one of the detectives, the State offered the video interview of Blotske and stated, "pursuant to the previous stipulation where we admitted the tape, I would like to play about 13 minutes of the interview where they actually get into the specifics." The State played the video for the jury. Blotske's counsel objected because the video began to play content the parties had agreed to omit. The district court permitted the State to address the jury about the statement. Blotske requested a mistrial just before the second day of trial was set to begin. Blotske's counsel argued the statements on the video were prejudicial and when the State addressed the jury about the statements, it brought further attention to the misinformation and tainted the jury beyond repair. The State resisted the motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Blotske's request for a mistrial, reverseed and remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Blotske" on Justia Law

Summary dismissal is normally inappropriate for post-conviction relief claims arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because such claims typically require development of a record in an evidentiary hearing. Lorry Chase appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Chase was charged with one count of gross sexual imposition (a class AA felony), for an assault occurring in 2007. In 2014, a jury convicted Chase of the charge, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on appeal. After review of Chase's application for post-conviction relief, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, because genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary disposition. View "Chase v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Shawn Teggatz appealed after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment and fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the verdicts were supported by substantial evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not permit Teggatz to testify about his mechanic's out-of-court statements, it affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Teggatz" on Justia Law

When a district court error has been waived or invited in a criminal case, the obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply. Eybon Watkins appealed after a jury found him guilty of robbery and the district court imposed upon him a four-year mandatory minimum sentence as an armed offender. Watkins argues that the district court erred in applying the mandatory minimum sentence for armed offenders in this case because the jury was not required to find that he possessed a firearm, and this error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The North Dakota Supreme Court determined this case did not involve a forfeited error: the issue about the verdict form and the mandatory minimum sentence question was discussed by the parties before, during, and after the trial. Watkins agreed to leave the question off the verdict form as a matter of trial strategy. This error was waived, and the obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) did not apply. View "North Dakota v. Watkins" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting John Hawkins' motion to suppress evidence. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient, competent evidence supported the district court order suppressing blood test results, and its decision wasnot contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court, therefore, affirmed the district court order suppressing the results of Hawkins' blood test. View "North Dakota v. Hawkins" on Justia Law