Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant J.G. appealed a district court order that denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3. Concluding the district court did not err in finding J.G. engaged in sexually predatory conduct and the State established by clear and convincing evidence that J.G. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In the Matter of J.G." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Bradley Davis appealed a district court order dismissing his motions for leave to depose witnesses and summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application. Because he produced no competent evidence to support his motion to depose Angela Cook, and the evidence he sought to obtain by deposing Graylan Bobo and Angela Cook would not have likely resulted in an acquittal, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny his motions for leave to depose Cook and Bobo. The district court did not err by summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application because no showing has been made that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Davis v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Darin Dahl appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a bifurcated trial under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04.1-16 and for failing to request the verdict form reflect the possibility of a finding of "not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility." Finding that Petitioner failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been different if his counsel had requested a bifurcated trial, and that his claim to ineffective assistance of counsel was frivolous and without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dahl v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

SM Energy Company appealed a summary judgment declaring that A.G. Golden and other plaintiffs were entitled to a four percent overriding royalty interest in leases and lands covered by a 1970 letter agreement and ordering SM to pay amounts due to Golden and the other plaintiffs for these interests, and an order denying SM's motion to amend or for relief from the judgment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that SM through its predecessors in interest, expressly assumed an "area of mutual interest" clause in the 1970 letter agreement and in expanding the judgment to include unpled and unlitigated properties within the area of mutual interest. Furthermore, the Court concluded the court correctly ruled as a matter of law that SM owed Golden and the other plaintiffs retroactive royalty payments on production from a certain well located on the subject property. View "Golden v. SM Energy Company" on Justia Law

The State appealed and Ernest Coppage cross-appealed a district court judgment granting Coppage's application for post-conviction relief, vacating his attempted murder conviction, and ordering a new trial. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in finding Coppage received ineffective assistance of counsel and erred in granting his application for post-conviction relief. Coppage argued the court's decision on his ineffective assistance claim should be affirmed but the court erred by failing to rule on his other claims for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly started its analysis of the issues by deciding whether Coppage's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction. However, the court did not properly apply the law to determine whether Coppage was prejudiced and the court failed to decide whether post-conviction counsel was also ineffective. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.M. appealed an order denying his petition for discharge as a sexually dangerous individual. He contended on appeal that the district court erred in not striking the testimony and report of the State's expert because she testified she had not reviewed his entire file at the State Hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying J.M.'s motion to strike the expert's testimony and report and did not clearly err in deciding J.M. remains a sexually dangerous individual. View "Interest of J.M." on Justia Law

In 1989, Southeastern recovered a judgment against David Herzig in a North Carolina court. In August 1998, the North Carolina judgment was transcribed and filed in North Dakota under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, and renewed in North Carolina in 2000, and was again transcribed and filed in North Dakota for enforcement purposes. In 2004, Alphild Herzig, David Herzig's mother, was joined as a party. In 2005, Southeastern moved for an order compelling Alphild Herzig to comply with Southeastern's discovery requests and requested sanctions. In June 2006, Southeastern moved to compel discovery and requested sanctions. The court granted Southeastern's motion for sanctions against Alphild Herzig contingent on submission of a checklist of items to be produced so the court could set a daily sanction for each item not provided. The court also found Alphild Herzig was in contempt and awarded attorney fees. In August 2006, Alphild Herzig moved for release from the sanctions. The court denied her motion. In 2008, Alphild Herzig moved for an order to dismiss her as a party in the original action and vacating the 2004 order joining her as a party and all subsequent orders issued against her, including the 2006 contempt orders. Southeastern opposed Alphild Herzig's motion to dismiss. However, Alphild Herzig died before the court ruled on the motion. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the daily sanctions imposed on Alphild Herzig under 2006 contempt orders abated at her death. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court had not followed its instructions on whether a portion of the daily sanctions were intended to be money damages to compensate Southeastern or whether the sanctions were a forfeiture. As such, the Court reversed and remanded the district court to make that determination. View "Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig" on Justia Law

Marilyn Sateren appealed an order that denied reallocation of marital property in a stipulated divorce case, and Lorne Sateren moved to dismiss the appeal. Upon review of the trial court record and the arguments the parties made on appeal, the Supreme Court denied Lorne Sateren's motion to dismiss because Marilyn Sateren did not waive her right to appeal by unconditionally, voluntarily and consciously accepting a substantial benefit under the divorce judgment. The Court reversed the order denying reallocation of marital property and remanded the case for the district court to adequately explain the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its decision to deny reallocation. View "Sateren v. Sateren" on Justia Law

Vincente Chacano appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted murder. Because the trial court did not err in admitting an audio recording of the courtroom scuffle, sufficient evidence existed to sustain the convictions, and the prosecutor's improper statement in closing argument did not reach the level of obvious error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Chacano" on Justia Law

Alois Vetter appealed a district court's judgment entered after he was convicted by jury of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. On appeal, Vetter argued a vehicle is not a dangerous weapon under the plain language of N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(6). Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a vehicle may be considered a dangerous weapon. View "North Dakota v. Vetter" on Justia Law