Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Todd Zeller appealed his conviction after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture or deliver, and possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver. Upon review of Zeller's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the search warrant's provision providing for a nighttime search was not supported by probable cause. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Zeller's motion to suppress, and to allow Zeller to withdraw his guilty pleas.View "North Dakota v. Zeller" on Justia Law

Robert Hoff appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. The district court found by clear and convincing evidence Hoff remained a sexually dangerous individual. Hoff argued the district court erred in determining that he had a congenital or acquired condition manifested by a sexual disorder, personality disorder or other mental disorder or dysfunction, that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had difficulty controlling his behavior. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court made insufficient findings of fact on whether Hoff had difficulty controlling his behavior.View "Interest of Hoff" on Justia Law

Randy Holkesvig appealed district court orders denying him leave of court to file post-judgment motions, denying his motion to vacate or void judgment, and ordering the Grand Forks County Clerk of Court not to accept any further pleadings of any kind from him in this case, other than a notice of appeal. After Holkesvig pleaded guilty to stalking in 2008, Holkesvig engaged in extensive litigation against various parties, including unsuccessfully suing the complaining witness, two prosecutors, and a deputy sheriff, and alleging wrongdoing in the criminal investigation and prosecution. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Holkesvig v. Grove" on Justia Law

On October 13, 2010, Fargo law enforcement officers conducted a controlled drug buy in which they had a confidential informant arrange to buy methamphetamine from M.B., an unwitting go-between. M.B. was given $500 for the purchase. Officers on the scene saw her enter a black Nissan. M.B. returned to the detective's vehicle with the methamphetamine about seven minutes later. Another officer at the scene radioed his observations to other officers in the surveillance team and described the black Nissan. The black Nissan was ultimately pulled over on a traffic violation. That stop resulted in defendant Arthur Ostby being arrested. Defendant appealed after a jury convicted him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court concluded, after review of defendant's arguments on appeal, the district court did not err in denying defendant's suppression motion. Furthermore, defendant's due process rights were not violated by the State's failure to preserve evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. View "North Dakota v. Ostby" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Fred Hector appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed his action against the City of Fargo for claims involving special assessments against his land. He argued the district court erred in granting Fargo summary judgment, because N.D.C.C. 40-26-07 authorized his action to judicially establish Fargo's special assessments as void to the extent the assessments exceeded Fargo's actual costs of improvements, and his claims were not barred by administrative res judicata. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded N.D.C.C. sections 40-26-01 and 40-26-07 authorized a court to review issues about a municipality's special assessments in the context of the adequate legal remedy of an appeal. Furthermore, the issues Hector raised in this action were res judicata. View "Hector v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Erling "Curly" Haugland appealed the grant of summary judgment that dismissed his action against the City of Bismarck for declaratory relief involving Bismarck's implementation of an urban renewal plan and use of tax increment financing to fund renewal projects in its renewal area. Haugland argued Bismarck failed to establish as a matter of law that it complied with the procedural requirements of N.D.C.C. 40-58-06 for substantially modifying its urban renewal plan in 1994. On remand, the district court decided an appropriate 1994 resolution existed to add six city blocks to the renewal area and authorized renewal projects in the renewal area were pending in January 2011. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court affirmed that portion of the summary judgment concerning Bismarck's urban renewal plan including pending authorized projects for the existing renewal area when the district court decided the case in January 2011. However, the Court reversed and remanded summary judgment with respect to approval of the 1994 plan, finding no disputed issues of material fact existed regarding approval.View "Haugland v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law

Christopher Vandermeer appealed after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition with a person less than fifteen years old. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify concerning her age and date of birth over Vandermeer's foundation and hearsay objections. View "North Dakota v. Vandermeer" on Justia Law

Ricky James Rodriguez appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Rodriguez's argument because the Court concluded the issue on appeal was moot.View "Rodriguez v. N.D. State Penitentiary" on Justia Law

Joseph Daniel Potratz appeals the district court's judgment affirming the administrative hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges. A Burleigh County Deputy Sheriff arrested Potratz for driving under the influence ("DUI"). The administrative hearing officer concluded the deputy had reasonable grounds to believe Potratz had been driving under the influence and Potratz was properly tested after his arrest to determine his alcohol concentration within two hours of driving. Potratz appealed the hearing officer's decision. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Potratz v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Mark Osier appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 1994, Osier was charged with multiple counts of gross sexual imposition ("GSI") involving a minor under the age of 15 for alleged incidents involving his daughter, S.O. The jury in Osier's first trial deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial. For his second jury trial Osier hired an out-of-state attorney. The jury convicted Osier of six counts of GSI. The Supreme Court reversed Osier's conviction on appeal, holding that the district court had erroneously admitted testimony from Osier's niece that Osier had sexually molested her on several occasions when she was eight or nine years old. Osier was subsequently tried a third time. The jury found Osier not guilty on one count of GSI but guilty on the remaining five counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment on appeal, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the out-of-state attorney had failed to comply with the rape shield statute; that the evidence of additional sexual conduct was not sufficient to explain S.O.'s physical condition; and that the impeachment value of the additional evidence was merely cumulative to abundant other evidence. In 2012, Osier filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his third trial. Osier argued the out-of-state attorney's failure to comply with the rape shield statute, resulting in inadmissibility of the evidence of additional sexual acts between S.O. and her boyfriend, fell below the objective standard of reasonable representation and resulted in prejudice to Osier. After a hearing, the district court determined that Osier failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by the attorney's alleged deficient performance and that the issue was barred by res judicata because the Supreme Court had earlier determined that Osier had failed to demonstrate that any of the proffered rape shield evidence was relevant. The court accordingly denied the application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed, concluding Osier failed to establish he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance.View "Osier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law