Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1999, Robert L. Johnson was charged with one count of simple assault and two counts of contact by bodily fluid or excrement. Johnson was tried and convicted of all three counts. Because of improper jury instructions, Johnson's convictions were reversed and remanded. He was convicted again of all three counts in 2002. Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court, but later withdrew his appeal after accepting a plea bargain agreement pertaining to the disposition of the appealed charges. The Supreme Court dismissed Johnson's appeal in 2003. In 2014, Johnson applied for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of his application, Johnson submitted a letter dated July 17, 2013, from Johnson's 2002 trial attorney acknowledging he made some mistakes regarding his representation of Johnson. The State moved to dismiss on the grounds that the time for filing a post-conviction relief application had expired. The district court dismissed Johnson's application as barred by the two-year statute of limitations for post-conviction relief applications. Johnson appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Johnson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In November 2012, defendant-appellant Juan Galvez was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition, both class A felonies, for engaging in sexual acts with two minor girls. According to the complaint, the girls were under the age of fifteen, while Galvez was over the age of eighteen but under the age of twenty-two, when the acts occurred. Defendant argued on appeal that the State used improper gender-based peremptory challenges in jury selection and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Galvez" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Sean Kovalevich was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of corruption of a minor. The State alleged Kovalevich engaged in a sexual act with a minor female at a hotel in Grand Forks. At trial, a hotel employee testified about the hotel's reservation system and the hotel's records for Kovalevich's reservation at the hotel, including confirmation of reservations to stay at the hotel February 3-6, 2012, and August 13-15, 2012. The employee began testifying about the registration document for one of Kovalevich's confirmed reservations, but his lawyer objected and argued the registration documents had not been disclosed during discovery. The court limited the witness's testimony, and the registration documents were not introduced into evidence. During the trial, the State gave Kovalevich's lawyer copies of receipts for a hotel in Fargo, the Ramada Plaza and Suites. The receipts showed payment for a room reservation in Kovalevich's name for February 6-7, 2012, and August 15-16, 2012. The receipts were not introduced as evidence during the trial, and Kovalevich did not request a continuance to allow him to review the documents. Kovalevich was found guilty of all three counts. Kovalevich requested the court allow him to question the jurors about whether they considered the testimony about the Canad Inns registration documents in reaching a verdict. The court denied his request to question jurors at that time. The district court then denied his motion for a new trial, ruling the issues were not adequately raised, the evidence was properly admitted, and Kovalevich was not precluded from inquiring into the validity of the verdict. Finding no reversible error after review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Kovalevich" on Justia Law

In 2013, defendant-appellant Danny Birchfield drove into a ditch in Morton County. A highway patrol officer arrived at the scene, believed Birchfield was intoxicated, and asked Birchfield to perform field sobriety tests, which he failed. Birchfield took a preliminary breath test, which revealed a .254 percent alcohol concentration. The officer placed Birchfield under arrest and read him the implied consent advisory. Birchfield refused to consent to a chemical test. Birchfield appeals from a criminal judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to class B misdemeanor refusal to submit to a chemical test in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the charge on constitutional grounds. Because the Supreme Court concluded the statute did not violate Birchfield's rights under the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, section 8, it affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Birchfield" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant-appellant Rodney Brossart guilty of terrorizing, preventing arrest, and failing to comply with the law for estray animals. In 2011, two of Brossart's adult children observed three cow-calf pairs loose on or near Brossart's property and they determined the cattle did not belong to Brossart. The cattle were secured in a fenced "missile site" Brossart leased. One of Brossart's children told him about the cattle after the cattle were secured. The following day, neighbor Chris Anderson discovered three cow-calf pairs had escaped from his fenced property. Anderson tracked the cattle to Brossart's property and spoke to Brossart about the cattle. According to Anderson, Brossart informed him that he would have to buy the cattle back. Anderson returned to his farm and contacted the Nelson County Sheriff's Department. Eric Braathen, a deputy for the Nelson County Sheriff's Department, contacted Fred Frederikson, a licensed peace officer and a brand inspector for the North Dakota Stockmen's Association. While driving to Brossart's farm, Braathen and Frederikson saw Brossart pumping water from a field. Braathen introduced Frederikson to Brossart and Frederikson asked about the cattle and whether he could go look at them. According to Braathen, Brossart informed the officers "if you step foot on my property, you are going to not be walking away." The situation quickly escalated, Braathen attempted to arrest Brossart, Brossart resisted, and Braathen used a taser on Brossart multiple times before he was handcuffed. Brossart was charged with failing to comply with the estray chapter and preventing arrest. He appealed his conviction. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not give the jury any instructions explaining what constituted a threat and that communications that are not a "true threat" are protected speech. The district court therefore did not correctly and adequately inform the jury of the applicable law and erred by failing to include a jury instruction defining what constituted a "threat." Brossart's terrorizing conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on that charge. The Supreme Court affirmed in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Brossart" on Justia Law

In January 2013, while hunting coyotes in Logan County, defendant-appellant Penn Brandborg and a companion entered onto property owned by Joyce Haag and operated by her son, Keith Haag. To enter the property, Brandborg drove off of the main road onto an access approach road entering Joyce Haag's property. Joyce Haag owned the property on both sides of the access road. At the intersection of the main road and the access road, there was a no hunting sign posted on the north side of the access road. Anyone entering the property by the access road would have to drive right by the posted no hunting sign. Brandborg claimed that he believed the no hunting sign applied only to the land north of the access road, and he proceeded to drive into the field south of the access road to hunt. Brandborg was convicted after a jury found him guilty of hunting on posted land without permission. Brandborg has appealed, alleging the land was not properly posted and there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed Brandborg's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Brandborg" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Derald Ross, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted on three counts of burglary. At the final dispositional conference before trial, Horn moved to dismiss the case arguing the State had violated a discovery rule by failing to provide the actual name, rather than simply the job title, of one of its witnesses. The district court denied the motion. At the close of the State's evidence, Horn moved for acquittal based on lack of evidence. The district court denied Horn's motion. After the defense rested, Horn renewed his motion for acquittal, and the district court again denied the motion. Horn appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not commit obvious error in allowing the records custodian to testify, Horn failed to establish a Brady violation, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. View "North Dakota v. Horn" on Justia Law

James Nagel appealed his conviction entered on a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Nagel argued all evidence obtained after the administration of his pre-arrest onsite screening test should have been suppressed because he did not voluntarily consent to the test. Because there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court's decision that Nagel voluntarily consented to the pre-arrest onsite screening test, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Nagel" on Justia Law

Dale Yost appealed judgment entered on an Alford plea to five counts of gross sexual imposition. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the record did not establish Yost knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and his conduct did not rise to the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for resentencing with appointed counsel. View "North Dakota v. Yost" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Sam Leppert appealed a district court judgment finding him guilty of driving without liability insurance. Because a noncriminal traffic case may not be appealed to the Supreme Court, Leppert's appeal was dismissed. View "North Dakota v. Leppert" on Justia Law