Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Noah Glick appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. After voir dire concluded, the parties exercised their peremptory challenges and the jury was selected and sworn, and the remaining prospective jurors were excused. A former prospective juror then approached the bailiff indicating he wished to bring something to the attention of the court. The former prospective juror informed the judge, Glick and the State that during voir dire a juror sitting next to him, juror D.G., leaned over and told him "she had been a victim of an assault by her boyfriend but she said she had gotten over it." The former prospective juror was a lawyer and felt, as an officer of the court, he had to disclose the statement because D.G. did not raise her hand when the State asked if anyone had been in a fight, and she did not answer when Glick asked if anyone had been the victim of an assault. The district court questioned the juror in chambers, while Glick and the State were present. After the district court's additional questions, Glick moved for mistrial based on juror misconduct. The district court denied Glick's motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. View "North Dakota v. Glick" on Justia Law

Rodney Friesz appealed after a jury found him guilty of manslaughter and arson. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for manslaughter and arson. The Court remanded, however, for the district court to correct a clerical error in the criminal judgment because the judgment did not clearly state the jury entered a verdict of guilty to the offenses. View "North Dakota v. Friesz" on Justia Law

Heather Leavitt appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her application for post-conviction relief. In 2014 a jury convicted Heather Leavitt of attempted murder, for attacking her husband as he slept with a knife. He sustained serious injuries during the ensuing struggle, but was ultimately able to flee to safety. Although he was unable to positively identify his attacker, he described the assailant to authorities as “having a pony-tail, the same stature as his wife [Heather Leavitt].” Leavitt applied for post-conviction relief, arguing she received ineffective assistance of counsel. In April 2016 the State moved for summary disposition, arguing Heather Leavitt failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Heather Leavitt filed a motion to stay the determination of the State's motion for summary disposition until she filed a supplemental brief. The district court granted her motion. In May 2016 Heather Leavitt filed a supplemental application, arguing she received ineffective assistance of counsel when the lawyer representing her at trial failed to demand a Franks hearing because the affidavit on which the search warrant relied contained false and misleading statements and because favorable evidence was not presented at trial. The State renewed its motion for summary disposition. In November 2016 the district court granted the State's motion, dismissing Heather Leavitt's application. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that in opposing the State’s motion for summary disposition, an applicant for post-conviction relief may not merely rely on the pleadings or on unsupported conclusory allegations but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means which raises an issue of material fact. To avoid summary dismissal of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an applicant for post-conviction relief must present some evidence that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and he must overcome the presumption that his counsel's performance was within the broad range of reasonableness. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leavitt v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Timothy Denault's petition for declaratory relief and vacating his duty to register as a sexual offender in North Dakota. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in granting declaratory relief and that the Minnesota criminal offense to which Denault pled guilty was equivalent to a North Dakota offense for purposes of sexual offender registration under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(3)(b). View "Denault v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order denying its motion to correct an illegal sentence. Eric Hutchinson was charged with two counts of class AA felony gross sexual imposition and one count of class C felony corruption or solicitation of minors. Hutchinson pleaded not guilty to the charges. At a change of plea hearing, the State indicated the parties had reached a plea agreement. The district court stated, "[t]he sentence will be as you folks have agreed. And judgments will be entered accordingly." The State realized it mistakenly agreed to a different sentence than had been recited and agreed to by Hutchinson at the change of plea hearing. The State requested a status conference to discuss the error in sentencing. The State's attorney made it clear she was not alleging anyone intentionally mislead the district court, but indicated she had mistakenly "blindly--followed [Hutchinson's counsel's] lead" at the hearing. Hutchinson's attorney indicated he had mistakenly suggested the wrong sentence at the sentencing hearing. He also indicated Hutchinson was not willing to agree to an increase in his sentence, even if it had been an error. The district court indicated the State could file a motion under Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P., and request modification of the sentence. The State, in its brief in support of motion to correct an illegal sentence, included excerpts from the change of plea hearing where the plea agreement was recited and Hutchinson indicated he understood the agreement. The State argued the sentence was illegal because it failed to comply with promises made in the parties' plea bargain. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the sentence was not illegal because it did not differ from the plea agreement accepted by the district court at the sentencing hearing and it fell within the statutory limits. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the State's motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "North Dakota v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

A defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the defendant was not detained. Memory Bell appealed a district court's judgment after entering a conditional plea of guilty to the charges of possession of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and ingesting a controlled substance. Bell argued law enforcement impermissibly extended the traffic stop to allow enough time to have a drug-detecting dog come to the scene and perform a drug sniff. Because Bell failed to present evidence she was detained when officers performed the drug sniff, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bell" on Justia Law

Christian Hedstrom appealed a criminal judgment entered on his conditional plea of guilty to manufacturing marijuana and possession of marijuana. He was arrested after three bail bond agents entered and searched his residence, discovered large marijuana plants, and notified law enforcement. Three bail bond agents ("bounty hunters") arrived at Hedstrom's home in search of his brother, a fugitive. They knocked on the door and announced their presence. No one responded. Inside the home, a dog was barking. The bounty hunters thought they saw movement inside. They requested assistance from the Fargo police department in searching Hedstrom's home. After law enforcement officers arrived, the bounty hunters provided them with documentation that confirmed their identity, the fugitive's identity, and Hedstrom's home as the fugitive's residence. The officers informed the bounty hunters they would not assist them in the search but would form a perimeter to ensure everyone's safety. An officer testified that an additional reason for their securing the perimeter was to capture the fugitive if he attempted to escape from a window as the bounty hunters entered the home. The bounty hunters then kicked down Hedstrom's front door and entered his home while the officers secured a perimeter outside. An officer testified that the bounty hunters searched the home for some time, conducting "a thorough search" of the home. The bounty hunters found no one inside. During their search, they found a dog and several large marijuana plants. Upon leaving the house, they showed the officers photographs they had taken inside and described the marijuana plants they had seen in the basement and the upstairs bedroom closet. This information was used by the officers to obtain a search warrant. During the bounty hunters' search, Hedstrom and his girlfriend arrived home. They informed the officers the fugitive had turned himself in, and Hedstrom demanded the officers and the bounty hunters leave his property. The officers detained Hedstrom for the next two hours as they obtained a search warrant, searched the home, and seized the marijuana plants. They arrested Hedstrom, and he was charged with manufacturing marijuana, possession of marijuana, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court did not err in denying Hedstrom's motion to suppress. View "North Dakota v. Hedstrom" on Justia Law

The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not require exclusion of nontestimonial statements. Darrel Froelich appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of simple assault domestic violence. The State alleged Froelich assaulted his girlfriend's son-in-law, a household member. The case proceeded to trial. At trial, the State called the alleged victim, the alleged victim's wife, the responding officer, and a 911 operator to testify. The State planned to call Froelich's former girlfriend, who made the 911 call, but she did not appear on the day of trial. The State sought to introduce a recording of the 911 call, and Froelich objected because the caller was not in court to testify. After some discussion, the district court permitted the State to play a recording of the 911 call after using the 911 operator to lay foundation for the recording. The State played only a portion of the 911 call for the jury. In a discussion outside the jury's presence, the State noted it stopped the recording early so the jury would not hear the entire call. The State explained, "the 911 caller[] does allude to previous acts of Mr. Froelich beating her at that point and she makes further comments which we believe may prejudice the defendant in this matter . . . ." Froelich presented his case after the State rested. Froelich testified and gave a conflicting account of events. Froelich testified the victim had been the aggressor, and the confrontation lasted only ten seconds before the victim left the home. On appeal, Froelich argued the admission of a portion of the 911 call violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The State argued admission of the 911 call did not violate Froelich's constitutional rights because the statements were not testimonial. Finding no reversible error in admission of the 911 call, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Froelich" on Justia Law

Police officers outside of their jurisdiction generally act without official capacity and authority to arrest. A University of North Dakota (UND) police officer has the authority to initiate a traffic stop of a driver operating a motor vehicle on university property. Todd Wilkie appealed a criminal judgment after conditionally pleading guilty to reckless endangerment, fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer and driving under suspension, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the case. UND police officer Anthony Thiry was traveling east on Gateway Drive when he saw a vehicle traveling east on the 3000 block of Gateway Drive at a fast rate of speed and exhibiting erratic driving behavior. Officer Thiry checked the vehicle's license plate and discovered the owner, Wilkie, had a suspended drivers license. The vehicle driver matched Wilkie's description. According to Officer Thiry, he activated his overhead lights attempting to stop Wilkie, but the vehicle sped past, ultimately becoming disabled from hitting a median. Wilkie fled by foot and was apprehended.  Wilkie filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, arguing Officer Thiry lacked jurisdiction to stop him. After a hearing the district court entered an order finding Officer Thiry was within the UND police department's jurisdiction and had official capacity and power to arrest Wilkie because UND owns the property encompassing the eastbound lane of Gateway Drive. The district court further determined Officer Thiry was in hot pursuit of Wilkie when Wilkie did not stop his vehicle within UND police department's jurisdiction. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

When a party objects to the State's admission of evidence with a pretrial motion in limine, the party must renew their objection at trial in order to give the district court an opportunity to rule on the issue at trial. A party's failure to renew their objection at trial acts as a waiver of the claim of error. Harold Shick appealed a district court's judgment entered after a jury convicted him of terrorizing, reckless endangerment, felonious restraint, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shick's motion for a mistrial, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. View "North Dakota v. Shick" on Justia Law