Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

According to Deputy Sheriff Curt Olson's affidavit, he approached a running vehicle, responding to an early-morning report the vehicle was in a ditch. Olson saw the driver sleeping inside the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Chris Engelhorn and admitted he had been drinking alcohol the night before. After Engelhorn recited the alphabet and counted backwards, Olson administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which Engelhorn failed. Englehorn also failed a preliminary breath test. Olson arrested Engelhorn for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The State filed a motion in limine requesting to use Engelhorn's HGN test results, through Olson's testimony, as evidence of impairment at trial. The district court denied the motion, concluding Engelhorn's HGN test results could not be used at trial without expert testimony establishing the scientific reliability of the HGN test. The State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the trial court misapplied the law regarding the admissibility of HGN test results. View "North Dakota v. Engelhorn" on Justia Law

Claude Mercier appealed after he pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Because the district court properly denied the motion to suppress, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Mercier" on Justia Law

Alfred Garnder appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and driving with a suspended license. On appeal, he argued the district court should not have denied his challenges of the prospective jurors for cause. He also claimed that by using a peremptory challenge against one of the jurors, the assistant state's attorney engaged in racial discrimination during jury selection. Because the district court properly denied Garnder's challenges, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Garnder" on Justia Law

In 2014, the landlord of a Bismarck apartment building called police to report an odor of marijuana coming from apartment 10. Noah Hoffer rented apartment 10. Three Bismarck Police officers responded to the call and noted an odor of marijuana coming from the apartment. Two of the officers left to secure a search warrant for the apartment, and Detective Jerry Stein arrived at the apartment building to assist with executing the search warrant. The landlord approached Stein and told Stein that he had warned Hoffer multiple times to stop smoking marijuana in the apartment, he received another complaint about marijuana use that day, he went to apartment 10 but no one was home, and he entered the apartment and found a black backpack. The landlord led Stein to a vacant apartment 1, showed him the backpack, told him there were three jars of marijuana in the backpack, and attempted to hand the backpack to Stein. Stein testified a strong odor of marijuana was emanating from the backpack, and he told the landlord to put the backpack on the table while he decided what to do. The landlord informed Stein that he had removed the backpack from apartment 10 and moved it to apartment 1. Stein attempted to contact the officers who were securing the warrant for the apartment to request they also obtain a warrant for the backpack, but he was unable to reach them. Stein placed the backpack in his vehicle and later transported it to the police department. Later, Stein obtained a search warrant for the backpack and found three jars containing marijuana, a digital scale, and plastic baggies when he searched the it. The bag's owner, defendant Brandon Heier, was arrested and conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Heier argued police had no probable cause to seize his backpack and take it to the police department. The Supreme Court found that the landlord "seized" the backpack when he took possession of it, removed it from apartment 10, and placed it in apartment 1. The landlord turned the backpack over to police. The Fourth Amendment did not apply to a search or a seizure effected by a private person. Therefore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Heier's motion to suppress. View "North Dakota v. Heier" on Justia Law

Charles Davis II appealed a district court's order denying his motion for discharge from his conditional release from the North Dakota State Hospital. In April 2011, the State charged Charles Davis II with murder and theft of a motor vehicle. Lynne Sullivan, a forensic psychologist at the State Hospital evaluated and diagnosed Davis with schizophrenia, paranoid type, and concluded he was not criminally responsible for his acts. Davis entered unopposed pleas of not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility to both charges. In August 2012, the district court found Davis mentally ill or defective and that there was a substantial risk that Davis would commit a criminal act of violence threatening another with bodily injury or inflicting property damage and Davis was not a proper subject for conditional release. The district court committed Davis to the North Dakota State Hospital and advised Davis that his commitment could last for the remainder of his natural life. In May 2013, Davis filed a notice that he would be seeking a discharge at his annual review hearing. In June 2013, Sullivan filed an annual treatment update, reporting that due to Davis's consistently good behavior, he was given additional privileges, including transfer to transitional living on the State Hospital's campus. Sullivan's report indicated Davis obtained outside employment, working up to fifty hours per week, took and monitored his own medications, and displayed no symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia since his commitment. Sullivan recommended that the district court continue Davis's commitment and gradually transition him back into the community. Sullivan made a similar report in 2014. In September 2014, Krislea Wegner, an independent psychologist, conducted a civil commitment evaluation. Wegner reported that Davis successfully transitioned to independent living without incident or setback, and that he had enough insight regarding his treatment regimen to seek out services and resources if stress or additional mental health symptoms became a factor. In March 2015, Davis moved for discharge. Davis argued he proved by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was not a substantial likelihood he would commit a criminal act as the result of mental illness or defect and, therefore, the district court was required to discharge him under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04.1-25(5)(a). After reviewing the entire record, evidence in the record supports the district court's findings of fact and the North Dakota Supreme Court was "not left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made." Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's denial. View "North Dakota v. Davis" on Justia Law

Tyler Asbach appealed the district court's criminal judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to appeal and seeking review of the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Asbach argued the district court erred in its amended order in concluding evidence found when his suitcase was searched was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Specifically, he claimed the police officer was acting in bad faith to accelerate discovery of the challenged evidence by exceeding the scope of consent to search. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Asbach" on Justia Law

Damon White Bird appeals an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013 the State charged White Bird with attempted murder, a class A felony; two counts of felonious restraint, class C felonies; tampering with physical evidence, a class A misdemeanor; and aggravated assault, a class C felony. White Bird represented himself at trial with limited assistance of standby counsel. A jury found White Bird guilty on all five counts. Represented by counsel, White Bird appealed the criminal judgment, arguing he was not competent to waive his right to counsel at trial. In 2015 this Court affirmed the criminal judgment, concluding White Bird was competent to waive his right to counsel. White Bird applied for post-conviction relief arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error in the denial of post-conviction relief, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "White Bird v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Allen Ratliff appealed from an order dismissing his application for postconviction relief. A jury found Ratliff and two others guilty of robbery, burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, theft of property, and felonious restraint in connection with an April 2012 home invasion in Grand Forks. Ratliff filed an application for postconviction relief alleging numerous grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing during which Ratliff, his sister, his trial attorney, and the prosecutor testified, the district court in a 10-page decision denied the application. "[B]ecause the district court's decision denying the application is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous," the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Ratliff v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order on remand denying the forfeiture of $16,420 in U.S. currency seized by law enforcement during a traffic stop. Because the district court's order relied on an erroneous application of the law and was not supported by the evidence, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting the State's motion to forfeit the money. View "North Dakota v. Horning" on Justia Law

Curtis Francis and another man, Michael Dax, were collecting signatures near the Jamestown Civic Center, a designated polling place, on voting day. They were doing so in an effort to get an initiated measure regarding environmental concerns placed on the next ballot. While they were collecting signatures, it began to rain. They moved under a canopy covering an entrance to the polling place. They continued collecting signatures as individuals walked past them to vote. One voter told an election clerk about Francis and Dax's activities. The clerk informed the county auditor. The auditor, along with a plain-clothed security officer, went to speak with Francis and Dax. They informed the two it was illegal to collect signatures within 100 feet of a polling place. Dax began arguing with the auditor; Francis continued collecting signatures. A police officer was dispatched. The officer confiscated the signatures, but did not arrest Francis or Dax. After the incident, the officer forwarded a report to the county prosecutor. The prosecutor filed charges against Francis for collecting signatures within 100 feet of an open polling place. Francis appealed after conditionally pleading guilty to gathering signatures within 100 feet of a polling place. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the electioneering law he was charged under did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and was a reasonable restriction on the North Dakota Constitution's initiated ballot measure provision. The Court also concluded Francis has failed to show he was selectively prosecuted. View "North Dakota v. Francis" on Justia Law