Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Tydise Peltier appealed an amended criminal judgment of conviction and a district court judgment dismissing in part his application for post-conviction relief and amending the criminal judgment and sentence in his case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err when it amended the judgment of conviction and resentenced Peltier. Furthermore, the Court held that Peltier's probationary sentence on the failure-to-register charge was appropriately categorized as mandatory. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court judgments. View "Peltier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Gary Houim appealed an order denying his motion to modify residential responsibility for a child he had with Clara Ann Thompson (f/k/a Engh). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Houim's affidavit and supporting documents established a prima facie case entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Morton County Social Service Board v. Houim" on Justia Law

Billy Joe Kinsella appealed a district court judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2010, a jury convicted Kinsella of sexually assaulting his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, S.B. Evidence at the trial included testimony from the investigating officer, the sexual assault nurse examiner ("SANE"), North Dakota State Crime Laboratory analysts, and DNA evidence taken from bed sheets located in the Kinsella residence. One of the crime laboratory analysts testified the bed sheet tested positive for semen and that DNA analysis revealed the semen matched Kinsella's DNA profile. S.B. testified she did not remember the sexual assault or the sexual assault examination conducted by the SANE nurse. Kinsella appealed his conviction to this Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. In his application for post-conviction relief, Kinsella argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding that Kinsella failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "Kinsella v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A series of burglaries occurred over several months in Bismarck involving more than $65,000 in stolen property and property damage. D.O. is a juvenile thought to be involved with the crimes. While investigating D.O.'s involvement, Detective Matthew Fullerton performed a probation search of D.O.'s residence, obtained information from a tipster and a confidential informant, searched publicly available information on D.O.'s Facebook page and performed a "cell tower dump" showing cell phone activity in the area of the burglaries at the time they occurred. D.O. appealed the juvenile court's order granting the State's motion to transfer D.O.'s case to the district court and denying D.O.'s suppression motion. D.O. argued law enforcement offered false or misleading testimony in support of the search warrant, that insufficient probable cause existed to justify the search warrant's issuance, that the juvenile court relied on out-of-court statements in violation of his statutory right to confrontation and that his case was inappropriately transferred to the district court. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of D.O." on Justia Law

Esteban Dominguez appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Dominguez argued his attempted murder conviction as illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-16-01(1)(b) could not be the underlying charge for an attempt offense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) is not a cognizable offense, because attempt requires an intent to complete the commission of the underlying crime and a majority of the Court has held that murder under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life results in an unintentional death. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Dominguez v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Andrew Canfield appealed district court judgments entered upon conviction of four drug related offenses. He also appealed another order denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his dormitory room. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a lack of evidence in the record to make meaningful appellate review of the issues presented impossible. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Canfield" on Justia Law

Kawo Otis Flah appealed a district court order mandating forfeiture of a 2002 Dodge Intrepid. Because Flah's due process rights were violated when the notice to appear was mailed to his residential address rather than at his in-custody address, the Supreme Court reversed the district court judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. One 2002 Dodge Intrepid Automobile" on Justia Law

Wayne Otto appealed after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a camper. He entered a conditional plea of guilty. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the camper fell within the scope of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement to the warrantless search because law enforcement had probable cause to believe drugs were present in the vehicle. View "North Dakota v. Otto" on Justia Law

Sulejman Bahtiraj appealed a district court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He was convicted after pleading guilty to a burglary charge. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in denying Bahtiraj's motion for post-conviction relief. Bahtiraj failed to prove the prejudice necessary to satisfy the second prong of the two-prong "Strickland" test. View "Bahtiraj v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Margaret Oakland appealed a district court order that granted summary judgment in favor of Bonnie Bowman, and Evan and Dayna Del Val. Oakland argued on appeal that her claim was not time-barred and equitable tolling should have applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in determining that Oakland's claim was brought after the statute of limitations expired and that equitable tolling did not apply. View "Oakland v. Bowman" on Justia Law