Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“DOCR”) petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original supervisory jurisdiction to direct the Honorable Judge Stacy Louser (hereinafter “district court”) to amend a portion of a criminal judgment imposing probation as part of a sentence for a class B misdemeanor and requiring the DOCR to supervise the probation. The DOCR argued it does not have statutory authority to supervise probation when the underlying charge was a class B misdemeanor. The DOCR requested the criminal judgment be amended to relieve the DOCR from the obligation to supervise the probation. Without deciding whether the district court has the authority to require a defendant to be supervised by the DOCR as part of a sentence imposed for a class B misdemeanor, the Supreme Court concluded the DOCR did have the authority to provide the supervision and declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction. View "DOCR v. Louser, et al." on Justia Law

Darrell Redpaint appealed an order summarily denying his application for postconviction relief. In 1981, Redpaint was convicted of two counts of murder. The judgment of conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Redpaint applied for postconviction relief at least eight times prior to this application. In May 2022, he argued the court in his underlying criminal case lacked jurisdiction because he was a juvenile at the time of the crimes. The State answered, alleging his juvenile status did not preclude his convictions and the application was barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata. Redpaint opposed the motion, arguing an evidentiary hearing was necessary because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Redpaint received effective assistance of trial counsel and notice of the hearing transferring him from juvenile court in his underlying criminal case. The court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment and summarily denied Redpaint’s application, concluding the application was untimely and barred by res judicata and misuse of process, and there were no genuine issues of material fact. Redpaint argues the district court erred in allowing the State to move for summary judgment “after the time for raising affirmative defenses had expired.” Finding no reversible error in the summary denial of the application, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Redpaint v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jeremy Knight appealed the denial of his motion to vacate the criminal judgment and for a new trial and a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Jury deliberations began on the second day of trial around 11:30 a.m. Less than an hour into jury deliberations, the jury posed a number of questions to the district court. The court answered the questions without objection. A short time later, the jury had another question which the court answered without objection. At 1:34 p.m., the court received another note from the jury that made the court aware of a deadlocked jury on both counts. The handwritten note used the phrase “verdict form” and showed the numerical division of both counts being deadlocked at 8–4 and 9–3. The court then stated to the jury: "I’m going to indicate to the jury that I’m going to send you back into the jury room. You’ve got to continue to work to try and get to unanimous verdict. ... So I need you to go back, kind of review the evidence again and try and come to unanimous verdict and then we’ll move from there." On appeal, Knight argued the district court erred in instructing the jury to reach a verdict after learning of the numerical division of the deadlocked jury. He also argued the court erred in denying his motion to vacate judgment and for a new trial. Finding no reversible error or abuse of discretion, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Knight" on Justia Law

Charles Brame appealed his conviction on two counts of sexual assault. Brame argued the district court failed to abide by Rule 11 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure and was biased in sentencing him. The North Dakota Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded to provide the State an opportunity to file any relevant transcripts which might show the district court substantially complied with Rule 11. View "North Dakota v. Brame" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court’s criminal judgment dismissing with prejudice a charge of gross sexual imposition against Bradley Graff. Because the district court did not provide adequate findings to support a dismissal of the charge with prejudice, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded. View "North Dakota v. Graff" on Justia Law

Bret Sullivan appealed a corrected criminal judgment after he pled guilty to driving under the influence. Corporal Harold Rochester stopped Sullivan’s vehicle because it was speeding and failed to remain in its lane. Corporal Justin Hoag was called to assist. Hoag decided to arrest Sullivan because of the information Rochester told him and because Sullivan’s vehicle emitted an alcoholic odor, Sullivan had glossy and bloodshot eyes, and he admitted to having consumed alcohol. Sullivan moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the arrest, and the court denied his motion. On appeal, Sullivan argues the court erred in finding that he received a sufficient advisement regarding the cause of his arrest under N.D.C.C. § 29-06-17 and in finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest him. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Drew Noble was convicted by jury on multiple counts. On appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Noble limited his issue to counts 12, 13, 14, and 15 in case no. 53-2021-CR01142, arguing there was insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions on “Promoting or Directing an Obscene Sexual Performance by a Minor.” The State conceded there was insufficient evidence on an element for these four “producing” counts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and vacated the convictions on counts 12, 13, 14, and 15 in case no. 53-2021-CR-01142. The convictions on the remaining counts in case nos. 53-2021-CR-01142 and 53-2022-CR-00217 were affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Noble" on Justia Law

Susan Coons appealed a criminal judgment finding her guilty of forgery. During jury selection, the district court informed the jury panel that the potential jurors had the option to speak with the court “in private” in a separate room if they had information to share that might be embarrassing or intrusive. After general questioning of the panel, the court, Coons, the attorneys for both Coons and the State, and an officer met in a private room and conducted individual questioning of three prospective jurors on the record. Coons argued on appeal that this procedure for individual questioning constituted a trial closure and violated her right to public trial. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s findings were sufficient to show an overriding interest but that the court’s limited consideration of the scope of closure and failure to consider alternatives to closure were erroneous. "Although the court identified one interest that may support closure, it did not narrowly tailor to that interest." The Court concluded this error was obvious error and the judgment was reversed. View "North Dakota v. Coons" on Justia Law

Corey Gardner was convicted by jury of child abuse. On appeal, she argued improper jury instructions resulted in obvious error. She also argued insufficient evidence supports the conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Evan Lonechild was charged with escape after being placed in the Lake Region Residential Reentry Center (“Reentry Center”) following a probation violation and subsequently failing to return to the facility while exercising work release privileges. Appealing the escape conviction, Lonechild argued he was not in “official detention” as defined by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-06(3)(b) because he was on probation when he left the Reentry Center. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Lonechild’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. Lonechild" on Justia Law