Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

John Murphy appeaed a judgment that summarily dismissed his application for postconviction relief. Murphy argued that he should have received postconviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the factual basis upon which he pled guilty was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Finding no genuine issue of material fact existed, and that the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Murphy's application for postconviction relief.View "Murphy v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Amanda Kulbacki appealed a district court judgment awarding her a divorce from Nicholas Michael and granting Michael's mother grandparent visitation. Kulbacki argued: (1) the district court erred in awarding grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C.; (2) that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., violated the United States and North Dakota Constitutions; (3) that the district court erred in including a provision that a future termination of Michael's parental rights would not impact his mother's visitation rights; and (4) that the district court erred in denying Kulbacki's motion for attorney fees as a victim of domestic violence contemplated in section 14-09-29(4), N.D.C.C. Upon review of the facts of the underlying case, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's determination that section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., was constitutional and that grandparent visitation under section 14-09-05.1, N.D.C.C., would not automatically end upon termination of Michael's parental rights. The Court further determined the district court unconstitutionally placed the burden on Kulbacki to show grandparent visitation was not in the child's best interests and made a legal error in determining attorney fees by impermissibly considering Kulbacki's return to Michael after she experienced domestic abuse at his hands. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Kulbacki v. Michael" on Justia Law

Defendant Mark Bosworth appeals from an order evicting him from land. In August 2013, Vlad Gasic commenced this action against several defendants, including Bosworth, Blake Bosworth, Catherine Fletcher, Matthew Fletcher, and James Legg, seeking an order requiring the defendants to vacate land in Epping, or requiring the sheriff to evict the defendants from the premises. Gasic's complaint asserted that he was the record title owner of the land, that defendants were unauthorized tenants, that defendants were using the premises in an unauthorized manner and not paying their fair share of utilities and garbage removal, and that Gasic had demanded the defendants vacate the premises immediately, but they refused to do so. Gasic also alleged he had served a notice of intent to evict under state law. The defendants answered the complaint and counterclaimed. After a hearing, the district court entered an "order for eviction" requiring the defendants and all occupants to vacate the premises on or before September 16, 2013. On September 16, 2013, the defendants moved to stay the eviction and requested a hearing, in addition to filing a notice of appeal. The district court entered a "stay of eviction" on September 16, 2013. Only Mark Bosworth filed a brief in this appeal. Bosworth raised multiple issues on appeal, including that Gasic did not own the land and had no legal authority to file this case, that the three-day notice required under state law was deficient, that Gasic never posted nor served by legal process the three-day notice required, and that the defendants have not been afforded due process. The Supreme Court found that neither the district court's order of eviction, nor the court's stay of eviction, provided any specific findings regarding these issues. Moreover, the Court concluded that defendants' appeal of the order for eviction was not an appeal from a final order or judgment, and therefore the Court dismissed the appeal.View "Gasic v. Bosworth" on Justia Law

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, on behalf of the State, appealed, and the National Audubon Society cross-appealed from a district court judgment dismissing the Attorney General's corporate farming enforcement action against Audubon and upholding the constitutionality of North Dakota's Corporate Farming Law, N.D.C.C. ch. 10-06.1. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the equitable defense of laches barred the State's divestiture claim. The Court declined to address the constitutionality of the Corporate Farming Law because the affirmative defense of laches provided an alternative basis upon which the case may be disposed.View "Stenehjem, ex rel. v. National Audubon Society, Inc." on Justia Law