Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Not all communications between law enforcement and citizens implicate the Fourth Amendment: an officer running to get ahead of a person, without any threatening or coercive conduct, does not constitute a show of authority escalating a casual encounter into a seizure; the presence of two officers, in and of itself, does not constitute a show of authority escalating a casual encounter into a seizure. Kevin Reilly appealed a criminal judgment entered after conditionally pleading guilty to having actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Grand Forks Police Corporal Robert Buelow and Officer Daniel Essig received a call from dispatch of a possible drunk driver. The officers located the vehicle, parked with its headlights on, at the apartment building of the vehicle's registered owner. Buelow attempted to get his attention by saying, "Excuse me, sir," but Reilly kept walking towards the apartment door. Buelow ran ahead of Reilly to meet him on the sidewalk. Buelow did not know whether Reilly was intentionally ignoring him. Buelow took the license, and after identifying Reilly brought him to the squad car for field sobriety tests. Reilly was charged with having actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Reilly reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss his case. Reilly argues the district court erred in denying his motion by ruling the stop was a casual encounter and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Grand Forks v. Reilly" on Justia Law

Christian Hall appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pleaded guilty following the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss for violation of Hall's right to a speedy trial. Hall was arrested for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver after a search of his backpack revealed the presence of Oxycodone pills packaged in baggies. A four-factor balancing test is used to evaluate the validity of a speedy trial claim: length of the delay, reason for the delay, proper assertion of the right, and actual prejudice to the accused. A sniff by a drug detection dog is not a Fourth Amendment search. A brief detention of luggage for purposes of conducting a dog sniff is a limited intrusion that requires only reasonable suspicion. Whether an officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion is a fact-specific inquiry that is evaluated under an objective standard considering the totality of the circumstances. Whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is a question of law, and on appeal, the sufficiency of information before the magistrate is reviewed based on the totality of the circumstances. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded after review of the facts of this case that the district court did not err when it denied Hall's motion to dismiss for violation of Hall's speedy trial rights. The Court also concluded the district court did not err when it denied Hall's motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Hall" on Justia Law

Section 39-20-01, N.D.C.C., requires law enforcement officers to convey the implied-consent advisory in an objectively reasonable way calculated to be comprehensible to the driver. Miguel Ayala appealed a judgment entered on his conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress his blood test result, arguing that law enforcement failed to "inform" him as required under the implied-consent law. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Ayala" on Justia Law

Karen Keller appealed after a district court entered a disorderly conduct restraining order against her. Karen is married to Chad Keller. Chad previously was married to Nichole Keller and had three children with Nichole. According to Nichole, she emailed Chad stating she would like to pick up the two youngest children. Chad responded that the children did not want to go. Nichole went to Chad’s house at the time Nichole said she wanted to pick up the children, accompanied by Rachel Parker. She was met at the edge of the home’s property line by Karen, who appeared with her hands behind her back, concealing a handgun. Nichole and Rachel Parker asked Karen why she was carrying the handgun and Karen responded she did not know the person Nichole was with and did not trust her. Nichole testified that Karen did not point the gun at her or make any threatening or violent statements, but that after that encounter, she was fearful for her life and the safety of her kids. Nichole petitioned for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Karen. Karen argued the district court abused its discretion in issuing the order because she did not make a threat of harm against Nichole and her actions were constitutionally protected. Nichole did not file a brief. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that Karen’s conduct on her property was constitutionally protected. The district court erred as a matter of law by not excluding the constitutionally protected activity. View "Keller v. Keller" on Justia Law

Garron Gonzalez appealed the district court's judgment on his application for post-conviction relief. In 2003, Gonzalez was charged with two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition and pled guilty to both counts in 2004. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and placed on probation. The district court revoked Gonzalez's probation in 2011 and resentenced him to an additional term of imprisonment. Gonzalez appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed. In August 2012, Gonzalez filed his first application for post-conviction relief, arguing there were procedural defects in his 2011 probation revocation hearing. The district court granted Gonzalez's application and a new hearing was held in 2014. In August 2013, Gonzalez filed his second application for post-conviction relief, arguing Rule 11, N.D.R.Crim.P., violations in his guilty plea of the original sentencing in 2004. The district court denied the application; Gonzalez appealed and was represented by counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed. The State started the process of revoking Gonzalez's probation again, after the district court granted Gonzalez's first application for post-conviction relief. In February 2014, Gonzalez filed a motion to suppress evidence at the probation revocation hearing; counsel was appointed to represent Gonzalez during the proceedings. The district court held a hearing on Gonzalez's suppression motion in May 2014, and subsequently denied his motion. The district court held a probation revocation hearing in June 2014 and revoked Gonzalez's probation. Gonzalez appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed. In September 2015, Gonzalez filed his third application for post-conviction relief, alleging his representation during his second post-conviction relief case was ineffective. The district court denied his application. Gonzalez appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed. Gonzalez filed this, his fourth application for post-conviction relief, in December 2015. Gonzalez argued his representation during his suppression hearing, probation revocation hearing, and direct appeal was ineffective. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Gonzalez v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Kabbah Morris appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2014, Morris pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition. Morris was sentenced to twenty years of incarceration with twelve years and six months suspended with supervised probation to follow. Morris claimed his attorney's representation was defective because of a failure to challenge statements he made to police in light of his difficulties in understanding English. Morris was a citizen of Liberia and spoke a different dialect of English. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding Morris failed to establish his attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court order denying Morris's application for post-conviction relief. View "Morris v. North Dakota" on Justia Law