Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The preliminary hearing is a tool to ferret out groundless and improvident prosecutions; the State is not required to prove with absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, but need only produce sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that a crime occurred and that the defendant committed it. The State appealed a district court order dismissing with prejudice a class B felony charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver against Kensley Turbeville for lack of probable cause. Turbeville was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia following the execution of a search warrant at Turbeville's residence. Turbeville's counsel questioned the officer about the amount of marijuana found. The officer testified he did not feel he could get an accurate weight and that it was being analyzed at the state crime lab. The officer testified the individual "nuggets" of marijuana were not packaged separately. Turbeville argued there was nothing presented at the hearing to indicate she had intent to deliver. The State argued there was sufficient evidence presented for probable cause Turbeville possessed marijuana with intent to deliver. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the State produced sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for a charge of class B felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, it reversed and remanded. View "North Dakota v. Turbeville" on Justia Law

During an investigatory stop of a vehicle, a traffic violator can be temporarily detained until the legitimate investigative purposes of the traffic stop have been completed. Michael Phelps appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence. Phelps argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and the dog sniff unreasonably extended the traffic stop. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded: (1) the district court did not err in finding the officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop; and (2) the dog sniff conducted on Phelps' vehicle did not require independent reasonable suspicion because it occurred contemporaneously to the completion of duties related to the initial traffic stop. View "North Dakota v. Phelps" on Justia Law

A district court's analysis of whether "corroborating circumstances" indicate the trustworthiness of the statement is a preliminary determination regarding the admissibility of the evidence. Precious Bailey appeals a criminal judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Bailey argued the district court erred by excluding hearsay testimony after analyzing the credibility of the witness she wanted to testify on her behalf. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The odor of an alcoholic beverage, poor balance, and open containers of alcohol may permit an officer to reasonably formulate an opinion the body of a driver in a single-car crash contains alcohol. Matthew Marman appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Department of Transportation's suspension of his driving privileges for 180 days. Because Marman failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of the Report and Notice, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Marman v. Levi" on Justia Law