Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jason White appealed a district court order summarily affirming a municipal court judgment of conviction for disorderly conduct. White himself did not appear at a pre-trial hearing; his attorney did. Because the district court's summary affirmance was improper under N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(l), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On its face, the language of the summary affirmance subdivision was clear that it applied only when the defendant does not appear at a trial anew. Thus, summary affirmance is improper at hearings, such as dispositional conferences, which occur before the trial anew. View "City of Fargo v. White" on Justia Law

Gaylord Gene Evans appealed after a jury found him guilty of negligent homicide. Evans argued:(1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) that the district court permitted a lay witness to testify as an expert; (3) and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Upon careful analysis of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) defendant failed to show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted no reasonable inference of guilt; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an officer to testify because he did not give expert testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 702 and his opinions were based on his personal experience, perception, and helpful to the jury's determination; (3) and, in light of the entire trial, it was clear the State's innocuous remark did not rise to the level of misconduct resulting in an unfair trial, or deprive Evans of his due process rights. View "North Dakota v. Evans" on Justia Law

Darl Hehn appealed an order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual and from an order delaying a hearing on a subsequent petition for discharge until twelve months had passed since the last discharge hearing. Upon review of the record of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding: (1) the district court did not err in finding that Hehn remained a sexually dangerous individual; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding Hehn was not entitled to another discharge hearing until twelve months had passed since the last discharge hearing. View "Matter of Hehn" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") appealed a district court's judgment reversing an administrative law judge's ("ALJ") order, which affirmed WSI's order denying Ronald Kershaw's work injury claim. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in reversing the administrative law judge's order. The ALJ's decision was reinstated. View "Kershaw v. WSI" on Justia Law

Shealeen Hillerson, as "best friend" to T.D., a minor child, and T.D. appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their negligence lawsuit against the Missouri Valley Family YMCA for injuries T.D. suffered in a near-drowning accident while participating in a YMCA summer program. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the waiver of liability signed by T.D.'s mother was ambiguous, a question of fact existed as to the intent of the parties. Accordingly, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hillerson v. Bismarck Public Schools" on Justia Law

North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2, which would have abolished property taxes, was disapproved by the voters in the June 2012 primary election. Empower the Taxpayer ("Empower"), Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale supported Measure 2. Before the election, Empower, Nelson, and Hale brought this action against numerous state and local government officials and other entities alleging violations of the Corrupt Practices Act, and sought injunctive relief, including prohibiting the defendants from "advocating any position on Measure 2" and declaring the defendants "no longer eligible to run for public office." The County Defendants sought sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorney under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11, alleging the action against them was frivolous and that it had been brought for an improper purpose. The action was ultimately dismissed by the district court, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. After the action was dismissed, the district court considered the County Defendants' motion for sanctions, concluding a competent attorney could not in good faith have believed that a cause of action existed against the County Defendants. The court therefore ordered reasonable attorney fees and costs for defending against the action and that the plaintiffs prepare a written retraction of their allegations of corruption and impropriety to be published in the major newspapers of the state. Upon review of the sanctions issue, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's orders did not provide an adequate explanation of the evidentiary and legal basis for its decision; the Court was unable to adequately understand the basis for the court's decision to review on appeal. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded to the district court to clarify its opinion. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law

Richard Whitman appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Whitman argued the district court erred in allowing into evidence statements he made to law enforcement in violation of his Miranda rights, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy. The Supreme Court on its own motion reversed the conspiracy charge brought pursuant to N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) as an uncognizable offense. View "North Dakota v. Whitman" on Justia Law

Travis Samshal appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in excluding evidence about threatening statements the victim allegedly made to Samshal. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Samshal" on Justia Law

Leron Howard appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy. Howard argued the district court erred in directing a multi-county jury panel, and in denying his amended motion for change of venue. He also argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding no error and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Howard" on Justia Law

Korsiba Arot was charged in district court with three counts of gross sexual imposition for incidents that occurred in the summer of 2011, the latest of which occurred in August, 2011. Arot moved to dismiss the criminal charges arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Arot was not eighteen at the time of the incidents. The district court found the State failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Arot was eighteen at the time of the incidents. The charges were dismissed. The State appealed the dismissal of charges. Finding no error in the dismissal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Arot" on Justia Law