Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Edward Morales appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to causing death while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood-alcohol test. Morales argued that there was not sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision that exigent circumstances permitted the warrantless blood-alcohol test and N.D.C.C. sections 39-20-01 and 39-20-03 were unconstitutional. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the warrantless blood-alcohol test was indeed authorized under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, and affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Morales" on Justia Law

In 2013, a motorcycle stopped at an intersection in Fargo was struck from behind by a pickup driven by Steven Montplaisir. A Fargo police officer was also stopped at the intersection and observed the victim jumping around and screaming. The officer noticed Montplaisir had the strong odor of alcohol and slurred speech. Another officer arrived at the scene to investigate Montplaisir for driving under the influence. Montplaisir failed field sobriety tests and laboratory results indicated he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.217 percent. Montplaisir was arrested and charged with felony criminal vehicular injury. Montplaisir appealed after a jury found him guilty. On appeal, Montplaisir argued the criminal information was deficient, the criminal vehicular injury statute was unconstitutionally vague, the jury instructions were improper, and the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Montplaisir had proper notice of the charges against him, the criminal vehicular injury statute was not vague, the jury was properly instructed, there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. View "North Dakota v. Montplaisir" on Justia Law

In July 2014, Chad Guttormson was stopped by a West Fargo Police Officer for an alleged traffic violation and was subsequently arrested and charged with driving under the influence and refusal to submit to an onsite screening test. Guttormson appealed a district court judgment after a jury found him guilty of refusal to submit to the test. He argued on appeal that his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated because the arresting officer did not testify at trial and was not subject to cross-examination, and another officer was allowed to testify regarding the arresting officer's actions. Additionally, Guttormson argued there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could infer the arresting officer formed an opinion that Guttormson had committed a traffic violation or that his body contained alcohol. The Supreme Court also affirmed the judgment of the district court, concluding Guttormson's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was not violated and sufficient evidence existed to support his conviction, but remanded for the district court to correct the clerical error in the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Guttormson" on Justia Law

In 2013, Lorry Chase was charged with one count of gross sexual imposition against Jane Doe for an assault that occurred in 2007. At trial Jane Doe testified she knew Chase had been in jail. A medical professional's testimony referenced other victims. Chase moved for a mistrial after both instances. The district court denied both motions for mistrial and issued a curative instruction to the jury. Chase sought to offer evidence of prior consensual sexual conduct with Jane Doe. The district court held that the testimony Chase intended to offer was prohibited by N.D.R.Ev. 412. Chase appealed, arguing to the Supreme Court that the district court erred by denying his motions for mistrial because testimony referencing his time in jail and the existence of other victims was more prejudicial than probative. The State argued any prejudice from the testimony was properly remedied by the court's curative instruction to the jury. Agreeing with the State and finding no other reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Chase" on Justia Law

Brandon Keller appealed a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Keller argued his conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder convictions were illegal because N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b), and N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b), were incognizable offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal because Keller failed to establish a new interpretation of law applied to his case, and his application was therefore barred by the statute of limitations. View "Keller v. North Dakota" on Justia Law