Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Watford City Police responded to a call reporting an assault occurring in a vehicle parked along a downtown street. The reporting witness alleged to have seen an individual in the vehicle's driver's seat repeatedly hitting another individual in the passenger's seat. After responding to the call, the officers identified Jeremy Hannah as the individual in the vehicle's driver's seat. The officers arrested Hannah and the State charged him with simple assault-domestic violence. A jury convicted him, and he appealed, arguing the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hannah" on Justia Law

Jeremy Ballard appealed a district court judgment after he conditionally pled guilty to drug charges, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued the district court should have suppressed evidence from his residence because the suspicionless probationary search violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. After review, the Supreme Court reversed because the suspicionless search of an unsupervised probationer's home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "North Dakota v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The State charged Cody Atkins with a class AA felony for gross sexual imposition for acts that allegedly occurred in November 2013. At the probable cause hearing following Atkins' initial appearance, the State moved to amend its original information to a class A felony and amending the time of the alleged offense to September 2013. Atkins, represented by counsel at the probable cause hearing, did not object to the State's motion, and the district court allowed the State to amend its original information. The court then held an arraignment hearing, at which Atkins pled not guilty. At the pre-trial conference, Atkins informed the court he intended to change his plea. The court informed Atkins of his right to remain silent, his right to an attorney, and also informed him of the maximum and minimum penalties allowed by law, his right to a presumption of innocence, and his right to have the State prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, among other rights. Atkins told the court he understood these rights. The court also informed Atkins it was not bound to accept any sentencing recommendations and could impose any sentence allowed by law. Atkins said he understood. The court told Atkins he would be unable to withdraw his guilty plea if it was accepted by the court. Atkins responded he understood. Atkins entered an open guilty plea. The court inquired whether anyone made promises to Atkins in exchange for the plea or if the plea was the product of threat, coercion, or intimidation. Atkins responded no. The court accepted Atkins' guilty plea, finding an adequate factual basis for the plea existed and Atkins gave the guilty plea voluntarily. Atkins appealed the judgment after pleading to gross sexual imposition, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court failed to substantially comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11, thereby creating a manifest injustice warranting a withdrawal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Atkins" on Justia Law

During a patrol, a Jamestown police officer encountered a vehicle parked along a residential street with its door ajar. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer discovered appellee Casey Washburn asleep in the driver's seat. After waking Washburn, the officer detected an alcoholic odor that became stronger as the officer conversed with Washburn. The officer asked Washburn to perform field sobriety testing, which he refused. The officer then arrested Washburn on suspicion of being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. At the station, Washburn further refused the chemical test. A hearing officer concluded probable cause existed to believe Washburn was in actual physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated. In considering whether Washburn received an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel after his purported request to do so, the hearing officer found no evidence that Washburn wanted to speak to an attorney. "The purpose of his request to speak to an attorney [was] vague." Based upon this information, the hearing officer concluded there was no violation of Washburn's qualified statutory right to speak with counsel. The Department of Transportation thereafter revoked Washburn's driving privileges. On appeal, Washburn appealed the hearing officer's conclusion. The district court reversed the Department's revocation, finding that Washburn's statutory request for counsel was violated. Finding no error with this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Washburn v. Levi" on Justia Law

Adrian Williams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Williams argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and his request for a complete transcript of the suppression hearing. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in denying his transcript request, reversed and remanded so that Williams could obtain a transcript of the hearing and properly pursue his appeal. View "North Dakota v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2013, George Nelson and his wife were charged with theft of property and contracting without a license after the couple contracted with numerous individuals to construct buildings that were never completed. Nelson pled guilty to the charges. Prior to the February 2015 restitution hearing, Nelson requested it be continued to give him time to collect evidence to challenge the restitution amount and to hire alternate counsel. The court refused to continue the entire hearing and informed Nelson it would go forward with at least the State's witnesses. The court, however, told Nelson it would not issue a ruling and he would be given 60 days to hire alternate counsel, gather rebuttal evidence, and request a subsequent hearing. In March 2015, Nelson requested a subsequent restitution hearing, which was scheduled for May 2015. Nelson again requested a continuance because he had been released from prison in North Dakota and had been extradited to Nebraska. The court granted the request, and the hearing was rescheduled for July 15, 2015. On July 2, the court, without having conducted the rescheduled hearing, ordered restitution in the amount of $69,658 jointly and severally by Nelson and his wife. Nelson appealed. On appeal, Nelson argued the district court violated the law and denied him due process by failing to hold the rescheduled restitution hearing to allow him to present evidence to rebut the restitution amount. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed the district court's order, and remanded to allow Nelson an opportunity to present evidence on the restitution. View "North Dakota v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Marcus Chatman appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana by a driver. Chatman argued the district court should have suppressed evidence because illegally seized evidence was used to establish probable cause for a search warrant. He also argued his Sixth Amendment confrontation and compulsory process rights were violated. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Chatman" on Justia Law

Daryl Hennings appealed a criminal judgment finding him guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Sheriff Thom was dispatched to investigate a complaint dirt-bikes were being driven at the Pipestem Dam recreational area near Jamestown. When Thom arrived he heard dirt-bikes near the bottom of the dam and saw a headlight in the trees. Approximately ten minutes later Thom came to a prairie trail where he saw Hennings and another man, Wayne Deery, standing by two dirt-bikes. Thom smelled alcohol when he approached the men. A third man, Gary Ronholm, approached on a dirt-bike. While Thom checked the men's driver's licenses in his vehicle, Deery fled the scene on foot. Thom called for assistance and Sergeant Hoyt and Trooper Sova arrived approximately fifteen minutes later. Thom and Hoyt searched for Deery while Sova administered field sobriety tests on Hennings and Ronholm. Hennings failed four field sobriety tests and was arrested approximately forty-six minutes after Thom first observed him. Shortly thereafter, Sova administered an Intoxilyzer test on Hennings at the Stutsman County Correctional Center, which produced a .168 BAC reading. Hennings was charged and found guilty of "Person Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Any Other Drugs or Substance Not to Operate Vehicle." Hennings argued on appeal that insufficient evidence existed to convict him because the State did not prove he was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hennings" on Justia Law

Clinton Walker appealed a criminal judgment entered upon his conditional plea of guilty for possession of marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols with intent to deliver. Walker pled guilty after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence and, on appeal, challenged that order. Walker was a passenger in a car driven my Tyler Asbach. Walker's arrest stemmed from the traffic stop of Asbach's car. The officer requested permission to search the vehicle, which Asbach did not give as he did not rent the vehicle. The officer then spoke to Walker, who indicated he was a third cousin to Asbach and they were returning to Indiana because Asbach's mother was undergoing surgery. The officer requested permission from Walker to search the vehicle, which he received. The length of the stop from beginning until consent was given was twelve minutes. No citation or warning had yet been issued. The officer did not tell Walker what he was searching for. Walker and Asbach moved to suppress the evidence and dismissal of the charges arguing the search and seizure of Walker's vehicle were illegal. After the suppression hearing the district court denied the motion, finding the officer was conducting duties related to the initial stop, the stop was reasonable, valid and voluntary consent was given by Walker, and the scope of consent was reasonable in its duration and was not limited to the interior of the vehicle. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Walker's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Walker" on Justia Law

A McLean County Sheriff's Deputy pulled defendant-appellant Robert Gackle over after the deputy observed Gackle speeding. The deputy noticed Gackle appeared intoxicated and asked Gackle for permission to search his vehicle; Gackle consented. During the search, the deputy found a crushed beer can. The deputy then requested Gackle submit to field sobriety tests; Gackle complied. After Gackle performed the tests, the deputy placed him under arrest and drove him to the Turtle Lake Hospital. At the hospital, the deputy read Gackle the implied consent advisory and requested he submit to a blood draw. Gackle consented, a nurse drew his blood, and the deputy delivered the blood sample to the North Dakota State Crime Laboratory. A forensic scientist at the crime laboratory performed a chemical test on Gackle's blood sample, and the test result was .21% alcohol by volume. A jury found Gackle guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed, arguing the district court erred indenying his motion to suppress the test results. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Gackle" on Justia Law