Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael Filkowski appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence while operating a motor vehicle. Filkowski was stopped by a McKenzie County Deputy Sheriff for driving outside of the traffic lane. The deputy detected the smell of alcohol and observed that Filkowski's speech was slurred. A Highway Patrol officer arrived and made the same observations. After conducting field sobriety tests, Filkowski was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. He was transported to a local hospital where he consented to a blood alcohol test. At trial, Filkowski objected to the admission into evidence of certain documents offered by the State. A "Submission for Blood form" was objected to based on a lack of foundation. The State subsequently introduced a "Memo Regarding Designees of the State Crime Laboratory Director" without objection. The memorandum, authored by Hope Olson, Director of the State Crime Laboratory, appointed and authorized Charles Eder and Kali Hieb to sign and certify records. The results of the blood alcohol test indicated Filkowski had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. The district court determined Filkowski failed to provide sufficient proof that Ms. Hieb was not a designee of the Director of the State Crime Laboratory and overruled the objections. The jury returned a verdict finding Filkowski guilty. Finding no reversible error to the admission of the evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Filkowski" on Justia Law

A Grand Forks police officer stopped a vehicle after observing it screech to a halt at an intersection, causing a group of people to jump out of the crosswalk. The officer approached the vehicle and found defendant-appellant Tyler Jennewein sitting in the front passenger seat. While the officer spoke with Jennewein, Jennewein's girlfriend ran up to the vehicle and sat in the driver's seat. The officer went to the driver's side of the vehicle to speak with Jennewein's girlfriend and noticed a glass marijuana pipe lying on the ground below the driver's side window. Jennewein denied driving the vehicle, Jennewein's girlfriend said she had been driving and neither Jennewein nor his girlfriend claimed possession of the pipe. The officer returned to the passenger side of the vehicle and observed that Jennewein exhibited signs of intoxication. After Jennewein performed field sobriety tests, the officer placed him under arrest for driving under the influence, driving under suspension and possession of drug paraphernalia. Jennewein's first trial in July 2014 resulted in a mistrial. A second trial was held a few months later. Jennewein's defense was that he was not the driver of the vehicle, his girlfriend was the driver and the paraphernalia was not his. Jennewein's girlfriend testified as a witness for the prosecution and on cross-examination admitted she was the driver of the vehicle. Jennewein rested without testifying or presenting any evidence. The jury found Jennewein guilty of driving under the influence and driving under suspension, but not guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. The conviction was Jennewein's third alcohol-related driving offense within seven years, and his sentence included one year of supervised probation with one year of participation in the 24/7 sobriety program. Jennewein argued on appeal that the district court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce into evidence two certified copies of criminal driving under the influence judgments because the prosecution failed to disclose the documents prior to trial in violation of N.D.R.Crim.P. 16. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the two judgments into evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Jennewein's conviction and sentence. View "North Dakota v. Jennewein" on Justia Law

Appellant Morgan Kroschel appealed a district court judgment affirming the Department of Transportation's suspension of her driving privileges. Officer Ryan Haskell worked for the North Dakota State University Police Department. He was driving outside NDSU campus and observed Kroschel turn across a designated turn lane rather than enter a travel lane. The officer followed the vehicle before making a stop. At no time during this incident was the officer or Kroschel on NDSU property. Officer Haskell ultimately arrested Kroschel for driving under the influence of alcohol. Kroschel argued on appeal of her arrest and ultimate suspension of her license that the officer acted outside his territorial jurisdiction and was without lawful authority to arrest Kroschel. The authority for NDSU police officers to act on the NDSU campus was not being challenged; the authority of Fargo police officers to act on the NDSU campus was not being challenged. The issue was whether NDSU Police Officer Haskell had authority to arrest Kroschel under the circumstances in this case. Specifically, Kroschel argued Officer Haskell did not have authority to arrest her under a joint powers agreement adopted under N.D.C.C. ch. 54-40.3. Kroschel contended that under N.D.C.C. sec. 54-40.3-04, a MOU must be approved by the governing body, here the board of higher education. The district court found section "54-40.3-04 only [applied] to agreements between a criminal justice agency of this state and another state. The MOU in this case is an agreement between two law enforcement agencies within the state, and therefore, 54-40.3-04 is inapplicable." The Supreme Court agreed: chapter 54-40.3, N.D.C.C. did not authorize Officer Haskell to arrest Kroschel. The Court reversed the district court judgment affirming the Department of Transportation's suspension of Kroschel's driving privileges. View "Kroschel v. Levi" on Justia Law

A deputy sheriff pulled over Rebecca Havemeier's vehicle after observing her driving erratically in Dunn County. After failing field sobriety tests and registering a .286 alcohol concentration on an onsite screening test, Havemeier was placed under arrest for driving under the influence. During an hour-long transport to jail in Dickinson, Havemeier consented to take a chemical test with an Intoxilyzer. Havemeier argued the Department erred in revoking her driving privileges because she did not refuse to submit to the Intoxilyzer test and, even if she did refuse, she cured the refusal. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the Intoxilyzer test report was not "prima facie" evidence of a refusal, because the test was not performed in accordance with the approved method when the deputy did not give Havemeier three minutes to provide a sample and no expert testimony was introduced to explain the effect of the deviation. Furthermore, the deputy's testimony at the hearing did not establish an affirmative refusal by Havemeier to chemical testing. View "Havemeier v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Guy Packineau appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, driving with a suspended license, and driving under the influence. At trial, Packineau objected to the State offering testimony from witnesses not endorsed on the information under N.D.R.Crim.P. 7(g). He also objected to the introduction of documents under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 because they were not adequately disclosed to him, and the State only provided the location of the documents and not copies. The district court overruled both objections. Packineau also objected to the DUI jury instruction including language not found in the original complaint. This objection was also overruled. On appeal, Packineau argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he did not consent to the blood draw and a search warrant was needed. He also alleged the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Packineau" on Justia Law

Jose Martinez appealed after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. At the close of the State's case, Martinez moved for judgment of acquittal arguing evidence was insufficient to convict him. The court denied his motion. Before the case went to the jury, the court and the parties discussed the jury instructions. Martinez requested the complaint be attached to the jury instructions or the information from the complaint be used in the instructions on the essential elements of the offense to distinguish between the three counts and identify which incident corresponded to each count. The court denied his request. The jury found Martinez was guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition, but was unable to reach a verdict on the two remaining counts. On appeal, Martinez argued the trial court erred in how it instructed the jury. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's failure to include information in the jury instructions identifying the underlying act for each count of gross sexual imposition or to instruct the jury that it had to unanimously agree on the underlying act for each count was obvious error. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Dallas Lang appealed after a jury found him guilty of felonious restraint. He argued that because a juror allegedly made inappropriate comments during jury selection, the district court should not have denied his motion for a mistrial. He also argued the district court should have given a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the statements made during jury selection. Because the district court neither abused its discretion in denying Lang's motion for mistrial nor committed obvious error by not giving a curative instruction to the jury, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Lang" on Justia Law

Joan Gates appealed a district court order requiring her to pay $93,257.74 in restitution to the personal representative of the Lela Gates Estate, and an order denying her application for post-conviction relief. Gates was charged with misapplication of entrusted property for acts she allegedly committed while she was serving as the personal representative of Lela Gates' Estate. A jury found Gates guilty. The district court entered a criminal judgment and ordered Gates to pay $23,537.72 in restitution. The district court informed the parties it was reserving the issue of additional restitution and a hearing would be held after an anticipated appeal was complete. Gates appealed, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the criminal judgment. A proposed order for restitution was filed, requesting the court order $368,459.66 in total restitution, including restitution for the proceeds from the sale of stock, oil checks, and other amounts. After a hearing on the additional restitution, the district court sent the parties a letter advising them of its position on the restitution issues and indicating how it intended to decide on each item of requested restitution. The court requested the new personal representative of the Estate review his research to ensure there were no duplications in the amounts requested. The court also advised the parties that they could submit additional documentation regarding the matters addressed in the letter. Gates filed an affidavit and attached documents in response to the court's letter. No other materials or responses were submitted. The court ordered Gates pay a total of $93,257.74 in restitution. On appeal, Gates argued the evidence did not support the district court's findings about the amount of restitution ordered. She claimed the oil checks and proceeds from the stock sales were deposited in the Estate's bank accounts and the money was used to pay monthly bills and liens against the Estate. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court judgment reflected an error in the amount of restitution ordered. Certain bills were paid, and checks written but not drawn on the accounts. These amounts, the Court concluded, should not have been included in the ordered restitution. The Court directed the restitution order be amended to reflect these amounts and order Gates to pay $39,150.23 in total restitution. The Court affirmed the district court's restitution order as amended to reflect the correct amounts of restitution, and also affirmed the order denying Gates' application for post-conviction relief. View "North Dakota v. Gates" on Justia Law

Jad Breiner appealed an amended criminal judgment entered upon a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence, reserving the right to appeal the order denying his motion in limine. Breiner argued computer-generated case summaries of his DUI convictions were not sufficient to satisfy the State's burden of proving that Breiner had prior convictions, and that he either had counsel or properly waived representation by counsel so that the convictions could be used to enhance his sentence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Breiner" on Justia Law

In 2013, Kevin Werkmeister pled guilty to the charge of simple assault in violation of a city ordinance in Williston Municipal Court. In December 2013, Werkmeister moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice because the court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. The municipal court denied Werkmeister's motion. In February 2014, Werkmeister moved to reconsider. In an April 17, 2014, order, the municipal court denied the motion, concluding Werkmeister failed to properly bring the motion under the correct procedural rule and the motion was untimely. Several months later Werkmeister appealed to the district court. That court concluded he was "out of time" to appeal the convictions, but he filed post-judgment motions and it had jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. 29-28-06(5). The court also concluded the municipal court did not err in denying Werkmeister's motion to withdraw his guilty plea or the motion for reconsideration, finding Werkmeister signed a notification of rights and acknowledgment, which fulfilled any requirement to establish a record that Werkmeister knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty. Werkmeister appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction, so the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction for any further proceedings. View "City of Williston v. Werkmeister" on Justia Law