Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In April 1997, a jury convicted petitioner-appellant Mark Steinbach of murder, and physical obstruction of a governmental function and tampering with physical evidence. Steinbach was sentenced to life imprisonment, without the opportunity of parole, for his murder conviction. Steinbach appealed the part-denial of his application for post-conviction, arguing his post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to argue or provide evidentiary support that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial and appellate counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Steinbach v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Damon White Bird was convicted by jury of attempted murder, felonious restraint, tampering with physical evidence, and aggravated assault. White Bird filed a document in which he fired his attorney and moved to dismiss the case. At the end of one hearing, White Bird purported to rescind the document firing his attorney; at another hearing, White Bird insisted he wanted to represent himself. At the five-day jury trial, White Bird represented himself with the limited assistance of stand by counsel. White Bird appealed his conviction, arguing he was not competent to waive his right to counsel at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding White Bird was competent to waive his right to counsel, the district court did not err in regulating the introduction of evidence and instructing the jury at the trial, and sufficient evidence supported his convictions. View "North Dakota v. White Bird" on Justia Law

Defendant Gary Glaser was charged with indecent exposure after he allegedly pulled up to a stranger walking on a sidewalk, stopped his vehicle, and exposed himself (his genitals) to the victim. Glaser initially pled not guilty. After being provided a court-appointed attorney, he entered a guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing, Glaser argued he should not have to register as a sex offender because he had no prior criminal history as a sex offender, he did not exhibit any mental abnormality or predatory conduct, and the victim was not a minor. The State argued his conduct met the statutory definition of predatory conduct because it was directed at a stranger. The district court agreed with the State and determined Glaser was required to register. Glaser also received a sentence of one year, with nine months suspended, and he was placed on probation for two years. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Glaser to register as a sex offender. View "North Dakota v. Glaser" on Justia Law

Gayne Gasal appealed a district court criminal judgment after a jury convicted him of hunting without a license, and the district court's order denying his motions to suppress evidence obtained after the issuance of a search warrant of his farmstead for two hunting rifles. Gasal also sought suppression of statements he made during conversations with the game warden. Gasal argued the search warrant was invalid, and that he should have been given his Miranda rights prior to speaking with the game warden. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Gasal" on Justia Law

Jesse Eckroth appealed a district court judgment that sentenced him on his third offense of driving under the influence ("DUI"), a class A misdemeanor. Eckroth argued the district court order sentencing him for his third DUI conviction should have been remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal because he was convicted using invalid prior convictions. He also argued the district court erred in denying him credit for time served in custody as a result of multiple violations of the 24/7 sobriety program. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Eckroth" on Justia Law

On November 23, 2013, while patrolling on an alleged section line in a state vehicle, a state game warden followed hunters northwest of Jamestown and struck a large rock, damaging the vehicle. After observing the accident, the hunters approached the warden, and based on their conversation, the warden learned defendant Donald Bear had allegedly put the rock on the trail. While the vehicle was being towed from the scene, the warden alerted law enforcement. After an investigation, Bear was charged with violating N.D.C.C. 24-06-28 for obstructing a section line because he allegedly placed the rock in question on a section line. At the bench trial, Deputy Metzger, who conducted the investigation, testified that Bear told him he put the rock there to keep somebody from driving in his field. Bear also testified and denied making that statement. Bear admitted he placed the rock there so that if he decided to "break up" the section line, he would not have to farm around a rock pile. On appeal, Bear argued the district court erred in not granting his acquittal motion because the evidence did not support the conviction, his actions did not violate the statute, the matter should have been tried civilly, and there were public policy concerns if his conviction was affirmed. Because there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bear" on Justia Law

Based on information from a confidential informant, the Ward County Narcotics Task Force was investigating a suspect involved in selling and distributing methamphetamine. While accompanying the suspect during several drug transactions, the informant observed a Cadillac Escalade and a motorcycle with Colorado license plates at drug purchase and distribution locations. The officers followed the Cadillac to defendant Jamie Apland's residence and found the motorcycle parked out front. Relying on this information, as well as having discovered narcotics, paraphernalia, and a stolen weapon during a previous search of another location, officers arranged a "trash pull" at Apland's residence. During the trash search, officers found a white substance which tested positive for methamphetamine and an electronic scale disguised as a computer mouse commonly used in the trafficking of illegal narcotics. They also found mail addressed to Jamie Apland, Charisse Heim, and Charles Rogers III. Using this information, a search warrant was requested and received for Apland's residence. The affidavit in support of the search warrant did not indicate where the trash was located on the premises prior to the "trash pull." During execution of the search warrant, narcotics and related paraphernalia were found, and Apland was arrested. Apland moved to suppress the evidence arguing the warrant affidavit did not indicate where the trash was found on the property, and the narcotics and paraphernalia found were products of an illegal search. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Apland's motion to suppress evidence and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Apland" on Justia Law

Stacy Peltier appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Peltier pled guilty to eighteen burglary counts stemming from burglaries in eight North Dakota counties. The trial court accepted his pleas and sentenced him to five years for each count with the time to run concurrently. He did not file a direct appeal on that criminal case, and after serving his sentence, he was released in November 1996. He had since been convicted of federal crimes, and at the time of this appeal, was incarcerated. Peltier claimed his federal sentence was enhanced due to his prior state convictions. In January 2013, seeking to mitigate the federal sentencing enhancements, Peltier filed a post-conviction relief petition, arguing his state conviction was obtained in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 were violated, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court failed to properly combine his cases causing him to be prejudiced. The district court summarily denied his petition. Because Peltier failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that withdrawing Peltier's pleas was not necessary to correct a manifest injustice, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Peltier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In November 2014, Dr. Gabriela Balf-Soran filed an involuntary commitment petition claiming L.B. was mentally ill and chemically dependent. On November 13, 2014, Carmen Johnson and Dr. Lacey Armstrong filed a Report of Examination and a Report Assessing the Availability and Appropriateness of Alternate Treatment stating L.B. did not meet the mental illness commitment criteria, but she did meet "criteria for the chemical dependency commitment." At the treatment hearing, Johnson's refusal to appear without a subpoena and an order requiring her to testify was discussed. Dr. Balf-Soran was the only witness who testified, and the district court stated it would consider her testimony "[a]s the only evidence before the Court." The court issued an order finding L.B. was chemically dependent, and there was a substantial likelihood of substantial deterioration in her physical health if she did not undergo treatment and ordered her to undergo outpatient treatment with a residential component for a period not to exceed 90 days. L.B. appealed the district court's order requiring her to undergo treatment for chemical dependency, arguing the expert examiner failed to testify, there was no clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's findings, and the district court erred by not ordering the least-restrictive alternative treatment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of L.B." on Justia Law