Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In March 2011, the State charged defendant Mitchell Holbach with terrorizing, alleging he had sent letters or filed documents with the court threatening various public officials, law enforcement officers, and court-appointed attorneys involved in his prior convictions. He appealed the trial court order: (1) finding he was not competent to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense in a criminal prosecution for terrorizing; (2) suspending the prosecution against him; (3) ordering him committed to the care and custody of the State Hospital with directions for annual evaluations to determine whether he has attained competency to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense; and (4) ordering dismissal of the charges if he has not attained competency by March 2016. Defendant argued the district court erred in finding he was not competent to assist in his defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not clearly err in finding defendant was not competent to assist in his defense. Furthermore, the Court also concluded that defendant's pretrial commitment to the State Hospital under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04-08 must comply with the statutory procedures and safeguards of N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1. The Court modified the trial court's order, and as modified, affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Holbach" on Justia Law

Alicia Hart appealed her conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia after entering a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. In a separate case, Paul Timothy Sitte appealed his conviction possession of hashish, possession of methamphetamine drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana drug paraphernalia after also entering a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Upon review of these appeals, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments and remanded the cases to allow Hart and Sitte to withdraw their guilty pleas and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Hart" on Justia Law

Sagebrush Resources, LLC, appealed the grant of summary judgment dismissing with prejudice its action for trespass and for injunctive relief against Daryl, Larry, and Galen Peterson. The trial court found the action was frivolous and not made in good faith, and awarded the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Sagebrush argued on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in deciding Sagebrush's claims were frivolous and not made in good faith and in awarding the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Sagebrush Resources, LLC v. Peterson" on Justia Law

In prosecutions underlying this appeal, Casey Phillips applied for indigent defense services, and the district court appointed counsel to represent him. Phillips pled guilty to charges of violating a domestic violence protection order, stalking, terrorizing, and criminal trespass. He did not directly appeal the convictions. Phillips applied for post-conviction relief in January 2013, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective, his convictions were obtained as a result of a coerced confession and unlawfully induced guilty plea, and evidence not previously presented required the convictions be vacated. Phillips again applied for indigent defense counsel, and an attorney was assigned to represent him. Following a hearing, the district court dismissed Phillips's application for post-conviction relief, concluding, "For the reasons stated on the record, the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is hereby dismissed." Phillips appealed the dismissal of his petition. Concluding the district court abused its discretion in denying Phillips's request for a transcript of the post-conviction hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Phillips v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In April 2013, Randy Holkesvig petitioned the district court for a disorderly conduct restraining order against a business, Dakota Spas. Holkesvig's petition essentially alleged that after buying a hot tub cover from Dakota Spas: employees "order[ed] the wrong color of a hot tub cover" and "refus[ed] to send [him] receipts in a timely fashion;" a Dakota Spas individual "yelled" at him, he was told he needed a credit card receipt even though he claimed he was never given one; Dakota Spas "harassed" him by failing to give him an immediate credit back on his credit card and by requiring him to order a new hot tub cover to correct their alleged error; and Dakota Spas was dishonest with him and initiated unwanted telephone calls and sent unsolicited mail to him. Holkesvig appealed the district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of his petition and his request for an "oral hearing." Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a disorderly conduct restraining order cannot be issued against a business, only natural persons. View "Holkesvig v. Dakota Spas" on Justia Law

Michael Lee Broadwell was found guilty of burglary, terrorizing, making a false report, giving false information or report to law enforcement officers, simple assault, and disorderly conduct. He appealed, but the appeal was dismissed pursuant to a motion by Broadwell's attorney. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Broadwell argued the district court erred in denying his application for postconviction relief. Because Broadwell did not establish that he was prejudiced by the conduct which he alleged constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Broadwell v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Bernice Gustafson, as personal representative of the estate of Leonard, Brian, and Michael Gustafson, initiated an action to quiet title to certain mineral interests located in Burke County in October 2011 by service by publication in the Burke County Tribune. Gustafson ultimately applied for default judgment to grant quiet title. After a hearing, the district court found that notice and the summons had been served upon the defendants in the action, that more than 21 days had elapsed since service, that no answer or other proper response was received on behalf of the defendants, and that each of the defendants was wholly in default. The court entered default judgment. Burton Imboden, trustee of the Evans Family Trust, in an affidavit in support of his motion to vacate the default judgment, stated that after he received the summons and complaint, he called the office of Gustafson's attorney, to ask about the complaint and to inform her that he was opposed to what she was trying to accomplish with the complaint. He stated he left a voice message requesting that the attorney return his call, but he never received a call back. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default judgment, because a message left for the opposing attorney on an answering machine was not an appearance entitling Imboden to notice before entry of the default judgment. View "Gustafson v. Gustafson" on Justia Law

The State appealed a trial court's order granting Matthew Nguyen's motion to suppress evidence. Nguyen was prosecuted for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court held that law enforcement's use of a drug-sniffing dog in a secure apartment hallway did not violate Nguyen's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Several landowners whose land abuts navigable waters appealed the grant of summary judgments in favor of the State. The judgment held that the State owned the mineral interests under the land in the shore zone. Upon review of the dispute, the Supreme Court concluded that indeed the State owned the mineral interests under the shore zone of navigable waters since becoming a State in 1889 under the equal footing doctrine, and that N.D. Const. art. X, sec. 18, precludes construing the language now codified in N.D.C.C. 47-01-15 as a gift of the State's mineral interests under the shore zone to the upland owners. "If the chain of title reflects the State granted its equal footing interests to upland owners, those upland owners take to the low watermark, subject to the public trust doctrine and except where the deed provides otherwise. If the State is not in the chain of title for the upland owner's property, the anti-gift clause precludes construing N.D.C.C. 47-01-15 as a gift of the State's equal footing interests to upland owners." View "Reep v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed an order denying his motion to hold Kayla Rath in contempt and denying his request that the district court judge recuse himself from the case. The parties were divorced in January 2013 and Kayla was awarded primary residential responsibility for the couple's two minor children. Mark was awarded supervised parenting time to occur at the Family Safety Center while he was undergoing a domestic violence offender treatment program and a psychological evaluation, after which he could move for review of his parenting time schedule. A "no contact" order was in place during the divorce proceedings. Less than two months after entry of the divorce judgment, Mark brought a motion for an order to show cause why Kayla should not be held in contempt for violating provisions of the divorce judgment. Mark submitted two affidavits claiming Kayla violated various parenting provisions in the judgment. Kayla denied the allegations. Toward the end of the hearing, Mark requested the judge to recuse himself from the case. The court denied the contempt motion, finding Kayla "did not intentionally disobey the terms of the Judgment and . . . her conduct did not constitute contempt." The court also denied the request for recusal, reasoning Mark "stated no specific instances or evidence to support his claim of lack of impartiality." Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Rath v. Rath" on Justia Law