Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Robert Huss appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from contacting S.L.W. (a minor) for a period of two years. In November 2013, S.L.W.'s mother petitioned the district court for a domestic violence protection order against Huss on S.L.W.'s behalf, alleging Huss had sexually abused S.L.W. S.L.W. was nine years old at the time, and her mother and Huss were married, but were in the process of divorcing. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the district court abused its discretion in admitting the child's hearsay statements about sexual abuse, which constituted the only evidence supporting issuance of the protection order. View "S.L.W. v. Huss" on Justia Law

Andrew Olsen appealed a trial court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that as a matter of law, the failure of Olsen's attorney to raise an issue of first impression on an unsettled question of law in North Dakota did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore the Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Olsen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Karmen Lindsey appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her application for post-conviction relief from a conviction entered after her 2007 guilty plea to a charge of murder. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Lindsey's application for post-conviction relief failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding her claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. Therefore the Court affirmed the dismissal. View "Lindsey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

S.W.S. appealed a juvenile court order terminating his parental rights to T.R.C. S.W.S. is the father and C.M.C. is the mother of T.R.C., who was born in 2011. The child was taken into custody of Traill County Social Services in late 2012, based on abandonment by C.M.C. A reunification plan was developed for each parent for reunification with the child. Close to a year later, the State petitioned to terminate the parental rights of S.W.S. and C.M.C. C.M.C. appeared at an initial hearing and advised the court that she wished to voluntarily terminate her parental rights to the child. A termination hearing was held and various witnesses testified, including the father, the father's wife, and the child's social worker. There was evidence presented about conditions in the father's home, the father's employment, and the father's chemical dependency. After the hearing, the juvenile court ordered termination of both parents' parental rights. The court found the child was deprived and the deprivation was likely to continue. The court also found it was contrary to T.R.C.'s welfare to continue to live with his parents, reasonable efforts were made to prevent the need for removing the child and to make reunification possible, and termination was in T.R.C.'s best interests. After review of S.W.S's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court's findings did not adequately explain the basis for its decision. View "Interest of T.R.C." on Justia Law

Ernest Coppage appealed a district court order that denied him post-conviction relief after a jury convicted him of attempted murder. In 2006, the State charged Coppage with attempted murder. Before trial, Coppage moved the court to prevent the State from introducing evidence of his prior alleged domestic violence. The State did not object, and the court granted Coppage's pretrial motion. The Supreme Court recently held in "Dominguez v. North Dakota," that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) was not a cognizable offense. The Court concluded Coppage failed to establish he was prejudiced by claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. But following a majority of the Court's holding in "North Dakota v. Borner," and "North Dakota v. Whitman," the Court exercised its inherent authority to notice obvious error because Coppage's conviction for attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) was not a cognizable offense. Therefore the Court reversed Coppage's conviction for attempted murder and reinstated the jury's verdict of aggravated assault. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Justin Yarbro appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the district court's order denying his motion for a new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that defendant's failure to object to the admission of DNA evidence during trial and in his motion for a new trial precluded him from raising arguments on appeal about the admission of that evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of juror misconduct. View "North Dakota v. Yarbro" on Justia Law