Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Tyler Asbach appealed a judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to a drug-related offense, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On April 30, 2014, Asbach was stopped by Bismarck Police Officer Colt Bohn for making an improper left turn. Bohn testified approximately twelve minutes elapsed from the time of the stop until the time Walker gave consent to search the vehicle. Bohn stated Asbach had not been given a ticket or warning for the traffic violation before Walker consented to a search of the vehicle. The evening ended with Asbach being charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (edible THC). Asbach moved to suppress the evidence found in the search, arguing he was illegally seized after the purposes of the traffic stop were completed. The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding Bohn did not take any action outside the duties related to the traffic stop and Asbach was not illegally seized. The court also found the officer's search of Asbach's suitcase without first obtaining his consent was illegal, but under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the contraband discovered in Asbach's suitcase was admissible because the suitcase would have been searched after marijuana was discovered in passenger Clinton Walker's bag. After review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) Asbach was not illegally seized while the police officer was conducting duties related to the traffic stop; (2) the district court failed to make specific findings of fact as to whether the police officer acted in bad faith as required under the first part of the inevitable discovery test when searching beyond the scope of the consent to search; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that contraband found in Asbach's suitcase would have inevitably been discovered after Asbach's suitcase was searched without his consent, satisfying the second part of the inevitable discovery test. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Asbach" on Justia Law

Defendant Gino Acker drove Beau Johnson home after Acker and Johnson had been visiting bars in downtown Fargo. While driving to Johnson's residence, the two began to argue about Johnson smoking in Acker's vehicle. Acker alleged that when they arrived at Johnson's residence, Johnson exited the vehicle, walked around the front bumper, and began punching Acker through the driver-side window. Johnson denied punching Acker. Both parties agreed that Acker stabbed Johnson; Acker claimed the stabbing was in self-defense. A jury found Acker guilty of aggravated assault. He appealed the judgment, arguing the district court's admission of his prior criminal conviction for sexual assault was reversible error. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Acker" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Rodney Chisholm was convicted by jury of murder in 2011. He appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief requesting a new trial, arguing the district court erred in denying his application. He claimed his counsel was ineffective and argued to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in failing to address all of the issues he raised post-conviction. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's decision to deny Chisholm post-conviction relief was supported by the evidence, and affirmed the district court's order. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The parties Kim Anderson and Biron Baker have a child together, born in 2010. Under a stipulated judgment entered in June 2011, Baker was required to provide health insurance for the child or reimburse Anderson for her monthly costs to provide health insurance for the child. Baker was also required to reimburse Anderson for 50 percent of any medical expenses not covered by insurance within 30 days of a reimbursement request from Anderson. Baker appealed a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration following an earlier order that held Baker in contempt of court for failing to reimburse Anderson for their child's medical expenses and awarding Anderson attorney's fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker's motion. View "Anderson v. Baker" on Justia Law