Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

John Greywind appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief and subsequent motion for reconsideration. Greywind previously pled guilty to committing robbery while in possession of a dangerous weapon. He filed an application for post-conviction relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, imposition of a longer sentence than a co-defendant, and alleged the prosecuting attorney violated his due process rights. The district court denied the application without a hearing or response from the State. Citing North Dakota caselaw, the court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not arise by virtue of the fact that counsel did not inform Greywind prior to entry of his plea that his conviction would result in serving 85% of his sentence. The court also held that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and disparate sentence were not grounds for post-conviction relief because Greywind's co-defendant was sentenced after him and he did not possess the knife used in the robbery. Whether Greywind's counsel provided zealous legal representation, however, was a genuine issue of material fact. The Supreme Court concluded that Greywind was entitled to file a brief with supporting materials and that the district court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in considering information outside the pleading in denying the application without allowing Greywind to file a brief with supporting materials. The Supreme Court denied the district court's order denying Greywind's application for post-conviction relief and remanded for the court to allow Greywind to file a brief with supporting materials and, if appropriate, an evidentiary hearing. View "Greywind v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Brett Zacher appealed a district court order denying his motion to suppress evidence and from a criminal judgment entered after his conditional guilty plea to the charge of possession of a controlled substance. After review of the specific facts in the district court record, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court erred in relying on the plain view doctrine to justify the warrantless seizure of the plastic bag located in Zacher's vehicle. The case was remanded to allow Zacher to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Zacher" on Justia Law

James Weinmann, Jr. and Kayla Weinmann appealed a criminal judgment entered upon their conditional pleas of guilty to possession of methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance (hashish), possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), possession of drug paraphernalia (methamphetamine), and possession of drug paraphernalia (marijuana). The Weinmanns pled guilty after the district court denied their motion to suppress evidence. They argued the district court erred in denying the motion when it determined probable cause was established for the issuance of a search warrant, the reliability of the confidential informant was established, and the affiant did not intentionally mislead the magistrate by omitting certain facts from the magistrate. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Weinmann" on Justia Law

The State filed an information charging Taylor Weight with insurance fraud, a class A felony, and criminal mischief, a class B felony, for allegedly setting fire to his parents' combine. At the preliminary hearing, the district court determined there was no probable cause to believe Weight committed insurance fraud, and that charge was dismissed without prejudice. At the October 2014 jury trial on the criminal mischief charge, Weight moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case. The district court orally granted Weight's motion, stating the State failed to meet its burden under N.D.C.C. 29-21-14, and "as a matter of law," it "must dismiss the complaint." The court issued a "judgment of acquittal" on November 4, 2014, noting the State's evidence was "insufficient to sustain a conviction." The Supreme Court agreed the State failed to prove its case, and dismissed the State's appeal. View "State v. Weight" on Justia Law

Galen Rufus appealed a criminal judgment entered after a bench trial finding him guilty of human trafficking. Rufus responded to an advertisement posted on Craigslist under "personals > casual encounters" by a Ward County Deputy Sheriff using the undercover persona of "Chad Russo." The advertisement indicated Russo's girlfriend would be out of town for the weekend and her daughter wanted to make some money while her mother was gone. According to the advertisement, interested individuals could contact Russo for more details. Rufus responded to the advertisement requesting more information. Russo replied, informing Rufus that the girl was fourteen years old. Rufus asked Russo whether it would be illegal, as the girl was only fourteen, and requested more details. Russo acknowledged fourteen was illegal, but indicated he would not tell anyone. In two separate online Yahoo Messenger conversations, Russo and Rufus discussed the pricing for various sexual acts and a meeting place and time. Russo also sent Rufus a picture of "the girl." During Yahoo Messenger conversations, Rufus agreed to exchange two bags of marijuana, each worth $60, for one hour of time with the fourteen-year-old girl. Finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's verdict finding Rufus guilty of human trafficking, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Rufus" on Justia Law