Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In March 2013, the State charged Rapheal Murphy with delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, a class AA felony, and tampering with physical evidence, a class C felony. The information also stated Murphy had prior drug convictions in Minnesota state court. The State later amended the information to include a charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school. In November 2013, Murphy pleaded guilty to the charge of delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and the district court accepted his guilty plea. He appealed the sentence, arguing the district court failed to properly inform him of an additional mandatory eight-year consecutive sentence required under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23(3) before accepting his guilty plea at the March 2014 hearing. The Supreme Court concluded the district court misinterpreted the statute in determining the scope of its discretion in sentencing Murphy, so it vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Robert Schneider appealed the district court's order denying Schneider's motion to suppress evidence following a conditional guilty plea to possession of marijuana by a driver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Schneider argued the deputy's pre-arrest conduct went beyond a welfare check and was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, which the deputy lacked. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schneider" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Fetch appealed the judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Fetch argued the results of his blood test should have been suppressed because he did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. Because there was sufficient competent evidence to support the court's decision that Fetch voluntarily consented to the blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Fetch" on Justia Law

Darrius Patterson appealed after a jury found him guilty of delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. Patterson argued the district court should have declared a mistrial because testimony given by a confidential informant and statements made by the State during opening and closing arguments affected his right to a fair trial amounting to obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Norh Dakota v. Patterson" on Justia Law

Rebecca Larson appealed after she conditionally pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Brian Kuruc appealed a criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, tampering with physical evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia after also entering a conditional guilty plea. Both Larson and Kuruc appealed their convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Larson and Kuruc's motions to suppress evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in excluding Larson and Kuruc's Washington medical marijuana prescriptions as a defense to the crimes of possession and possession with intent to deliver. View "North Dakota v. Kuruc" on Justia Law

Rodney Simeon Scheett, Jr., appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He challenged the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence used against him. Because the search of Scheett's vehicle was justified under the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.View "North Dakota v. Scheett" on Justia Law