Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, a jury found Leron Howard guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Howard appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts and the district court erred by using a multi-county jury pool and denying his pre-trial motion for change of venue. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. In January 2014, Howard filed his own verified application for post-conviction relief on numerous grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and an "unconstitutionally selected and impaneled jury." The State answered and moved to summarily dismiss Howard's application because he failed to provide support for any of his allegations. In February, before the district court had acted on the State's motion for summary dismissal, Howard filed a second verified application for post-conviction relief, providing greater detail in support of his claims. Howard was then assigned court-appointed counsel. In March, the State answered Howard's second post-conviction application and once again moved for summary dismissal. The district court issued a scheduling order directing the State to file a motion for summary disposition. In April, one day before the State's third motion for summary disposition, Howard supplemented his post-conviction application. The supplemental filing restated the claims in his application in greater detail, with no references to the record or other competent evidence. The next day, the State moved for summary disposition again, arguing Howard had failed to provide admissible evidentiary support for his allegations. In June, without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the State's motion for summary disposition. Howard appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Howard failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. View "Howard v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

According to the administrative hearing testimony, a Bismarck police officer stopped appellant Richard Keller for driving over a lane-dividing line. The officer detected the odor of alcohol, and Keller admitted he had been drinking. After failing to complete a field sobriety test, Keller submitted to and failed an onsite breath test and was arrested. The officer transported Keller to the police department for chemical testing, and Keller blew into the Intoxilyzer machine providing only one adequate breath sample for the machine to read and would not or could not provide a second breath sample. The officer prematurely terminated the test sequence before the machine timed itself out. Keller appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges. Keller argued on appeal that the Department failed to show scrupulous compliance with the approved method for administering the Intoxilyzer test, warranting exclusion of his test record. Because the Supreme Court concluded the approved method for administering an Intoxilyzer test was not followed and no expert testimony was offered on the effect, if any, of the deviation, it reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Keller v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Issac Steen owned property located outside Williston in Williams County. The property contained a garbage dump. Law enforcement located the body of Jack Sjol within the garbage dump. Sjol had been missing for three weeks, and law enforcement discovered he had sustained multiple gunshot wounds and his body had been partially concealed. The person alleged to have committed Sjol's murder had been in communication with Steen prior to Sjol's disappearance. That person requested use of Steen's garbage dump, and indicated that Sjol had been murdered. Prior to law enforcement's discovery, Steen had discovered the body and did not voluntarily report the discovery to law enforcement. Steen did communicate with the person alleged to have murdered Sjol, and requested he remove the body from the garbage dump. After discovery of Sjol's body, Steen was arrested and charged with hindering law enforcement. Prior to trial, Steen filed a motion in limine prohibiting photographs of the body be shown to the jury. The district court denied Steen's motion stating, "this information would play into the aspect of whether or not the concealing, if that's what it was, of the body for some period of time - I heard three weeks - might hinder any investigation into it." At trial, Steen did not object to the introduction of any photographic evidence. Steen appealed after a jury convicted him of hindering law enforcement. Steen argued the district court abused its discretion by allowing photographs of the victim be shown to the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Steen" on Justia Law

In a June 2012 complaint, the State charged Billy Owens with leading a criminal association for purposes of committing felonious acts, and with conspiracy to commit aggravated assault for allegedly agreeing with one or more individuals to inflict serious bodily injury on Kenneth Moore. According to the State, the charges for leading a criminal association stemmed from an alleged drug dealing operation by a group of individuals in the Williston area, which was led by Owens and included Moore, Dallas Wellard, and Paul Huckstep. The conspiracy charges stemmed from Owens allegedly offering a reward for an assault on Moore after a disagreement with him. Owens appealed after a jury found him guilty. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Owens was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the State did not violate the discovery requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 16, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdicts, and the prosecutor's comments to the jury during final argument did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. View "North Dakota v. Owens" on Justia Law

Stacy Dahl appealed the criminal judgment entered following a conditional plea of guilty for the charge of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) with intent to deliver. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the search warrant for Dahl's luggage was supported by probable cause. View "North Dakota v. Dahl" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and four counts of endangerment of a child. Defendant was assigned an attorney and waived his right to a preliminary hearing on all charges. The State emailed Defendant's attorney, informing him of its intention to file a notice of habitual offender status, and subsequently filed the notice. In the notice, the State alleged Booth qualified as an adult, and he had been convicted of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, a class C felony, on April 23, 2010, and unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, a class A felony, on July 13, 2005. Attached to the notice of habitual offender status were certified judgments for both previous felony convictions. The district court held a change of plea and sentencing hearing, and explained the potential for increased penalties, as a result of the habitual offender status, to defendant. Defendant entered pleas of guilty to all counts, and the district court accepted the pleas. The district court sentenced defendant to ten years of incarceration on each count to be served concurrently, with credit for 43 days served. Defendant then moved for a reduction of sentence. The district court denied the motion. Defendant moved under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a)(1) to correct an illegal sentence, claiming his sentence was illegal because the one-day notice given by the State of its intent to seek habitual offender status was insufficient as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, and defendant appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Booth" on Justia Law

Carrie Jean Berg appealed criminal judgments entered on guilty pleas for two counts of gross sexual imposition against a minor child. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Berg waived her factual argument regarding the application of the statute of limitations, by voluntarily pleading guilty with knowledge of the factual dispute. The Court further declined to notice obvious error with regard to Berg's argument that the district court sentenced her in excess of a plea agreement she alleged existed. View "North Dakota v. Berg" on Justia Law

In December 2013, Joseph Barnes made an initial appearance in the district court after being arrested and charged for driving while under the influence of alcohol, a class A misdemeanor. Barnes was also charged for driving while his license was suspended and failure to transfer vehicle title, both class B misdemeanors. In April 2014, the district court held a hearing originally designated as a status conference, but which ultimately became a change of plea and sentencing hearing. At the outset of the hearing, Barnes, rather than the State, introduced into the record a May 2012 district court judgment and a March 2013 Minot municipal court judgment, establishing that he had two prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. Although the March 2013 judgment indicated Barnes waived the right to counsel before entering his guilty plea, the May 2012 judgment made no reference to either representation by counsel or waiver of counsel before Barnes's entry of a guilty plea. Before pleading guilty to the December 2013 charges in this case, Barnes objected to using the May 2012 judgment as a "sentencing enhancement" for driving under the influence because the judgment did not indicate Barnes either had counsel or had waived his right to counsel. The district court concluded the waiver of the right to counsel in the March 2013 judgment cured any constitutional defect regarding the alleged lack of counsel or specific waiver of counsel in the May 2012 judgment. Barnes appealed the subsequent sentence he received after convicted of driving under the influence, arguing his sentence was incorrectly enhanced. Because Barnes entered a counseled, unconditional guilty plea to driving under the influence as a class A misdemeanor, he failed to preserve the issue he raised on appeal. As such, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Barnes" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of October 10, 2010, a desk clerk at a Minot hotel was shot. Defendant Allen Rencountre was staying at the hotel and the shooting was recorded by the hotel's front desk security camera. Rencountre would later be charged with attempted murder, a class A felony, and fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, a class C felony. The State also filed a special dangerous offender notice against Rencountre to enhance the maximum penalty. Rencountre's retained attorney requested a mental health evaluation of Rencountre be performed at the State Hospital, and the State joined in the request. The evaluation revealed that Rencountre was competent to stand trial and was not suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense. Rencountre pled guilty under a plea agreement to attempted murder. The charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer was dismissed as part of the plea agreement, and the district court found Rencountre was a special dangerous offender. Rencountre waived his right to a presentence report and requested that he be sentenced immediately. The State orally advised the court that Rencountre had no prior criminal history. The court sentenced Rencountre to 30 years in prison with 10 years suspended, followed by 5 years of supervised probation. Rencountre appealed an order denying his application for postconviction relief. Because the district court did not err in concluding Rencountre failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and because the court's error in failing to receive a written criminal record report before sentencing Rencountre was harmless, the Supreme Court affirmed the order. View "Rencountre v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jeremy Johnson was committed as a sexually dangerous individual in 2012, and his commitment was affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court in "Interest of Johnson," (835 N.W.2d 806). In August 2013, Johnson petitioned the district court for discharge. At the discharge hearing, Dr. Robert Lisota testified for the State contending that Johnson remained a sexually dangerous individual subject to continued civil commitment. Johnson's experts, Dr. Stacey Benson and Dr. Troy Ertelt, testified at the discharge hearing asserting Johnson no longer met the criteria for civil commitment. After the hearing, the district court found the State had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Johnson remained a sexually dangerous individual subject to continued civil commitment. Johnson appealed the district court's order denying his petition. Concluding that the district court did not make sufficient findings of fact, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further findings. View "Interest of Johnson" on Justia Law