Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Heather Leavitt was convicted by jury of the attempted murder her husband Timothy. In early 2014, Timothy "woke up to being stabbed by an assailant in his home." He was seriously injured, but was able to flee. On appeal, Leavitt argued the district court erred by failing to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant lacking probable cause and lacking a nexus to support a search of her vehicle and home. She also argued the district court erred by admitting a photograph into evidence, which she alleged had been improperly altered by the State and lacked proper foundation and authentication. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "North Dakota v. Leavitt" on Justia Law

Daniel Wacht appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his application for postconviction relief. Wacht was convicted by a jury in 2012 of the murder of Kurt Johnson. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Wacht applied for postconviction relief claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence showed a State's witness fabricated his trial testimony. Wacht claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney was unable to remove a juror who was distantly related to Johnson through marriage. Wacht also claimed his attorney failed to object to the admission of a pair of latex gloves at trial. " Summary dismissal of an application for postconviction relief is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." After review, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in summarily dismissing Wacht's claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and for relief based on newly discovered evidence. View "Wacht v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Shane Peterka appealed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the State and denying in part Peterka's application for postconviction relief. Peterka was charged with 119 counts of unlawful possession of images of sexual conduct by a minor, class C felonies. In November 2013, Peterka filed an application for postconviction relief alleging his due process rights were violated when the prosecutor obtained a wrongful conviction by charging him with 119 counts when he only possessed or had two devices containing the prohibited materials. Peterka also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to properly investigate whether he committed 119 separate acts, because the attorney failed to investigate whether it was prosecutorial misconduct to charge him with 119 separate offenses and because his attorney failed to file and serve motions for change of venue and change of judge. After appointment of counsel for his postconviction relief claim, Peterka filed an amended application alleging that his probation exceeds the time allowed by statute, that he should not be required to register as a sex offender for the duration of his life and that his request for reduction in sentence should have been accepted by the sentencing court for review. The amended application also alleged Peterka's attorney failed to object to the sentence, inform the court of the lack of authority to issue such a sentence, advise Peterka in writing of his rights to appeal the sentence and challenge the sentencing portions regarding excessive probation and the requirement to register as a sex offender. Finding no reversible error in the denial of Peterka's claims, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Peterka v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In December 2012, the State charged Russell Everett, Jr. with aggravated assault involving domestic violence, and counsel was appointed to represent him. Everett was unable to post bond and he remained in custody until May 2013, when he appeared at a change of plea hearing with counsel, pled guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to a period of incarceration. In August 2013, Everett filed a self-represented application for post-conviction relief, claiming his plea was not voluntary and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Everett's application claimed his guilty plea was not voluntarily made with an understanding of the charge and the consequences of his plea because his lawyer "was not helping [him]" and his "lawyer said [he] would get probation and get out." Everett also claimed his "plea bargain did not come true" and he was "lied [to] about [his] plea bargain." He also claimed he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was "unlawfully arrested . . . with no evidence against" him. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in concluding Everett failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in entering a guilty plea to a charge of aggravated assault involving domestic violence and that withdrawal of the guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In February 2014, Watford City Police Officer Dylan Bostic stopped James Bauer for speeding at approximately 3:00 a.m., on Highway 85, near Watford City. During the stop, the officer noticed Bauer had slurred speech, watery and bloodshot eyes, poor balance and alcohol on his breath. The officer asked Bauer to submit to field sobriety testing, but Bauer declined. The officer read Bauer the North Dakota implied consent advisory and asked Bauer to submit to a preliminary breath test. Bauer agreed. The test showed a blood alcohol content over the legal limit for driving. The officer arrested Bauer for driving while under the influence and read Bauer his Miranda rights. The officer asked Bauer if he understood his rights, but Bauer remained silent. After transporting Bauer to the county jail, the officer again read Bauer the North Dakota implied consent advisory and asked Bauer if he would submit to a blood draw at the hospital. Bauer did not answer. The officer left Bauer in the squad car to consider his options and upon return, again asked if Bauer would submit to a blood draw. Bauer remained silent. The officer told Bauer if he did not answer, his silence would be considered a refusal. Bauer did not respond. The officer cited Bauer for refusal to submit to onsite screening or chemical test. Bauer appealed the judgment entered upon his conditional plea of guilty to refusal to submit to a chemical test. Bauer pled guilty after the district court denied his motion to suppress and dismiss his charge of refusal to submit to a chemical test. Bauer argued the district court erred in denying his motion when it determined the use of post-arrest, post-Miranda silence did not violate Bauer's constitutional rights against self-incrimination, due process or the Fifth Amendment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bauer" on Justia Law