Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant-appellant Tamri Stewart appealed her conviction following a conditional plea of guilty to class C felony abuse or neglect of a child, reserving the right to challenge the district court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Because the facts in this case did not support the district court's decision that a police officer's entry into Stewart's home was justified by the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded the case to allow Stewart to withdraw her guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Chad Klein appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct his sentence. The Supreme Court, after review, concluded that the district court acted within the limits prescribed by statute to sentence him for gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion. View "North Dakota v. Klein" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Luke Gatlin appealed his conviction following a conditional plea of guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia. Because the Supreme Court held Gatlin could not assert a violation of a third party's expectation of privacy in the home searched by police and because Gatlin failed to object to the search, it affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Gatlin" on Justia Law

Kathy Inwards was injured while employed as an assembler by Bobcat. WSI accepted liability for her claim and awarded Inwards vocational rehabilitation benefits to assist her in returning to work. In early June 2011, WSI issued a notice of intention to discontinue benefits ("NOID") stating her disability benefits would end then convert to retraining benefits. She had 30 days to request reconsideration of the decision. WSI issued a formal order requiring Inwards to "enter into training at Hutchinson Community College, Hutchinson, Kansas, in the Business Management & Entrepreneurship AAS program." Inwards requested reconsideration of the vocational rehabilitation plan, but attended two college courses during the summer of 2011 in accordance with the plan. Inwards complained to her physician that she was having increased pain as a result of her course work. Although Inwards registered for fall courses at the college, she withdrew from them. In October 2011, WSI issued a NOID to Inwards stating "[t]here is no medical evidence that supports your professed inability to attend the classes as outlined in the administrative order dated June 27, 2011. You are now considered to be in non-compliance with vocational rehab." Inwards timely requested reconsideration of this NOID, and on January 13, 2012, WSI issued a formal order suspending Inwards' rehabilitation benefits based on her noncompliance with the rehabilitation plan. Inwards timely requested a hearing to challenge WSI's finding of noncompliance and suspension of benefits. The ALJ reversed WSI's January 13, 2012 order suspending benefits for noncompliance with the vocational rehabilitation plan. WSI appealed to district court and Inwards moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because WSI failed to serve the notice of appeal and specification of errors on Inwards and her employer. The court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding Inwards had no standing to object to defective service on her employer and there was good cause to excuse WSI's mistake about recently mandated court electronic filing requirements. The court reversed the ALJ's decision, concluding the finding of good cause was "not supported by law," and reinstated WSI's January 13, 2012 order of noncompliance. The Supreme Court concluded the ALJ erred as a matter of law in ruling Inwards had good cause for failing to comply with a retraining program because WSI's previous order requiring Inwards to participate in the retraining program had been appealed and had not been finally resolved at the time she withdrew from the retraining program. The Court affirmed the district court judgment reversing the ALJ's decision and reinstating WSI's order of noncompliance. View "Inwards v. WSI" on Justia Law