Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ronald Rogers Jr. appealed district court judgment after he conditionally pled guilty to murder and willful disturbance of a dead body. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Rogers was not in police custody when he confessed to the crimes and that his confession was not involuntary. View "North Dakota v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Jennifer Daniels appealed a district court judgment and order deferring imposition of sentence entered following Daniels' conditional plea of guilty to Possession of Alprazolam and Possession of Carisoprodol, both class C felonies. In January 2013, a Burleigh County Sheriff Deputy stopped a vehicle for expired registration. Daniels was sitting in the front passenger's seat. The deputy obtained consent from the driver to search the vehicle, and the deputy asked the occupants to step out to the front of the vehicle. The deputy did not give the occupants any other instructions and did not tell anyone to leave anything or take anything with them. Daniels exited the vehicle, but left her purse inside. While searching the vehicle, the deputy searched a purse located on the floorboard of the front passenger's seat, which belonged to Daniels. In the purse, he found an Advil container that had an assortment of pills in it. The Supreme Court held the deputy's warrantless search of Daniels' purse was not justified under the consent exception to the search warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's judgment and order deferring imposition of sentence and denial of Daniels' motion to suppress, and remanded with instructions to allow Daniels to withdraw her conditional guilty pleas. View "North Dakota v. Daniels" on Justia Law

Michael Cone appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. In July 2012, the State charged Cone with aggravated assault and with felonious restraint, alleging he punched the complainant in the face and broke her nose. Cone argued the district court erred in denying his requested remedy for a discovery violation, the court erred in admitting evidence of his prior criminal convictions, the State committed prosecutorial misconduct and the court erred in allowing the State to comment on attorney-client privilege. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Cone" on Justia Law

Derek Pokrzywinski appeals the district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for three years. Pokrzywinski was in a single vehicle motorcycle crash. On Deputy Richard Sherlock's arrival, he observed Pokrzywinski on a backboard being loaded on an ambulance stretcher. While in the ambulance, Deputy Sherlock asked Pokrzywinski what happened, and Pokrzywinski responded that "he had a couple beers, hit a pothole and lost control of his motorcycle." A hearing officer concluded the Report and Notice form included sufficient information regarding the arresting officer's reasonable grounds to believe Pokrzywinski had been driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and Pokrzywinski effectively refused consent to the first request for a blood test. Finding no error in the Department's decision to suspend Pokrzywinski's license, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pokrzywinski v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Ronald McCoy appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation decision suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. The Supreme Court affirmed because McCoy consented to take a chemical breath test given by the law enforcement officer, and his constitutional rights were not violated as a matter of law by North Dakota's implied consent law. View "McCoy v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Joseph Herrman appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision revoking his driving privileges for one year. Herrman was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The Department revoked his license for refusing to take the chemical breath test. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension. View "Herrman v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Robert Hale, individually and on behalf of the State of North Dakota, and Susan Hale appealed a summary judgment dismissing their public nuisance claim against Ward County and the City of Minot. The Hales had a house on agricultural land about one mile southeast of a shooting range in Ward County, which was used to train local, state, and federal law enforcement officers. Several other farms and homes are located near the Hales' property and the law enforcement shooting range, and County Road 12 runs adjacent to the west side of that shooting range. In "Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm.," (764 N.W.2d 425), the Supreme Court affirmed a Ward County Commission zoning decision denying an application to rezone neighboring land, which is about one-quarter mile downrange from the law enforcement shooting range, from agricultural to residential for construction of a residential subdivision. The Ward County Commission denied Gowan's application, citing safety concerns resulting from the proximity of his land to the law enforcement shooting range. In "Hale v. Ward Cnty.", the Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Hales' public nuisance claim. The Court discussed the differences between a private and a public nuisance and explained different evidence was relevant to the Hales' claims for a private and a public nuisance. The Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the Hales' private nuisance claim, concluding they failed to present competent evidence supporting their claim the law enforcement shooting range posed a danger to their property. The Court reversed the summary judgment on the Hales' public nuisance claim about use of County Road 12 and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. The Court recognized, however, that Ward County and Minot had not argued the Hales failed to meet the "specially injurious" requirement for a public nuisance claim under N.D.C.C. 42-01-08, and neither the parties nor the district court had addressed the propriety of the Hales bringing an action to abate the law enforcement shooting range under N.D.C.C. ch. 42-02. On remand, the district court concluded "private citizens can bring an action 'ex rel.', but as a threshold matter, such citizens must first satisfy the special injury showing of N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08 or their public nuisance claim must be dismissed." The court granted Ward County and Minot summary judgment on the remanded claim for public nuisance regarding the Hales' use of County Road 12, concluding as a matter of law they failed to meet the "specially injurious" requirement for a private person to maintain a public nuisance claim under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08. The court also denied the Hales' request to join additional neighbors as parties to their action. The Hales argue the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their public nuisance claim, and in denying their joinder request. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Hale v. Ward County" on Justia Law

Rodney Chisholm appealed a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Chisholm argued the court erred in summarily dismissing his application on its own motion without providing him with notice or an opportunity to be heard. He also claims the court erred in failing to rule on every issue raised in his application. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court erred in summarily dismissing the application. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Barry Roe appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in admitting child hearsay statements as part of a stipulation. The Court also concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument. View "North Dakota v. Roe" on Justia Law

Omar Mohamed Kalmio appealed after a jury found him guilty of four counts of class AA felony murder after a jury trial. He argued the judgments should have been reversed because the district court abused its discretion by allowing hearsay testimony and testimony regarding his prior bad acts, denying his request for an alibi jury instruction and denying his motion for mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Kalmio also argued the evidence is insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Kalmio" on Justia Law