Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Christopher Haag appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief from criminal convictions entered after he pled guilty to drug-related charges involving JWH-018 1-Pentyl-3 (1-naphthoyl) indole ("JWH-018"). Haag was charged with possession of a controlled substance, with intent to deliver to another and with possession of drug paraphernalia for using a controlled substance for acts alleged to have occurred on November 12, 2010. JWH-018 has been identified as a synthetic cannabinoid, and the parties referred to it as "Spark." Haag pled guilty to the charges in May 2011. In November 2011, Haag petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming JWH-018 was not a prohibited controlled substance when he committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint. The State resisted Haag's petition and moved for summary disposition, arguing the North Dakota Board of Pharmacy's final rule delineating JWH-018 as a prohibited controlled substance was in effect when Haag committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint on November 12, 2010. We affirm, concluding JWH-018 was a prohibited controlled substance when Haag committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint in November 2010. View "Haag v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Karl Moseng and his wife Vicki Moseng were employed by Hartland Mutual Insurance Company. Lynn Frey was Vicki Moseng's supervisor from 1985 to 2008. Karl Moseng alleged Frey used his position as a supervisor with Hartland to arrange sexual liaisons with Vicki Moseng from 1988 through 1991. Specifically, Karl Moseng alleged Frey sent Karl Moseng on geographically distant employment assignments to more easily allow the liaisons between Frey and Vicki Moseng. Karl Moseng brought claims of negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Frey and Hartland. Frey and Hartland moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the dismissal with prejudice. Karl Moseng thereafter appealed, arguing his claims were legally sufficient to survive dismissal with prejudice. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Karl Moseng's claims were legally insufficient, and affirmed. View "Moseng v. Frey" on Justia Law

Gene Kirkpatrick appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded his statement to law enforcement was voluntary and properly used against him, the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conspiracy to commit burglary conviction, and the trial court did not err in issuing jury instructions. View "North Dakota v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota, by and through the Department of Human Services and its Child Support Enforcement Division ("the Department"), appealed a district court order denying its application for an order to enforce an administrative subpoena. In July 2010, the Department issued an administrative subpoena to the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund ("NDIRF") directing it to provide information on all claims submitted to the Fund. NDIRF objected to the subpoena, contending that the Department was not statutorily authorized to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF and that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. The Department filed an application for an order enforcing the administrative subpoena in district court. The district court determined that the Department was not statutorily authorized to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF and denied the application. The district court did not address NDIRF's arguments that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the Department was not statutorily authorized to issue an administrative subpoena to NDIRF. Accordingly, the Court reversed the order denying the Department's application for an order enforcing the administrative subpoena. Because the district court did not address NDIRF's contentions that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to properly consider these issues under the limited four-factor review of enforcement of an administrative subpoena. View "North Dakota v. No. Dakota Ins. Reserve Fund" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Shannon appealed a district court divorce judgment and a post-judgment order. The judgment entered in this case did not adjudicate all claims of the parties, and the court did not certify the judgment as final under Rule 54(b). Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded it did not have jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. View "Shannon v. Shannon" on Justia Law

Steven Zaiser, as Chairman of the Sponsoring Committee for the Statutory Initiative Relating to the North Dakota Medical Marijuana Act, asked the Supreme Court to order Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger to place an initiated measure for the Medical Marijuana Act on the November 6, 2012, general election ballot after the Secretary of State rejected 7,559 signatures on circulated petitions and decided the measure did not qualify for placement on that ballot. The Sponsoring Committee claimed that although the submitted petitions included some elector signatures forged by petition circulators, the petitions contained sufficient valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot. Because of time constraints for placing the measure on the November 6, 2012, ballot, the Supreme Court issued a dispositive order on September 19, 2012, denying the Sponsoring Committee's request for relief and stating a written opinion would be filed at a later date. Because the circulators' petitions at issue in this case included signatures forged by the circulators in violation of a mandatory constitutional provision, the Secretary of State correctly rejected those petitions in calculating the number of elector signatures necessary to place the measure on the November 6, 2012, ballot and correctly determined the remaining petitions contained insufficient signatures to place the measure on that ballot. View "Zaiser v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant William Scott Gagnon III appealed a judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to manufacturing marijuana. He reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered in his residence. Defendant argued the evidence was unconstitutionally seized during an illegal warrantless search of his home. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the search was indeed illegal, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Gagnon" on Justia Law

Defendant Jessica Burkhardt appealed a district court judgment that awarded damages to Plaintiff Jon Kohanowski for the unpaid balance of a loan and ordered Defendant to pay costs and attorney fees. Defendant was engaged to marry Shaun Kohanowski, Plaintiff's brother. In 2006, Shaun and Defendant were planning to purchase a home. Shaun Kohanowski contacted Jon Kohanowski, who agreed to lend the couple money to help buy the home. Jon Kohanowski alleged that Defendant was in the room and overheard Shaun's side of the telephone conversation during which the brothers discussed the loan. Plaintiff contended the terms of the loan required Defendant and Shaun to repay the loan. Plaintiff wired $675 to Shaun and Defendant's bank to start the appraisal process and sent a check for $9,325 payable to Shaun and Defendant. Only Shaun endorsed the check, and he deposited the proceeds into a joint checking account he shared with Defendant. In early 2007, Defendant signed two checks for $215 each drawn on the joint account and payable to Plaintiff. Defendant and Shaun subsequently called off their engagement, and no further payments were made on the loan. In September 2010, Shaun e-mailed a "Letter of Intent" to Plaintiff acknowledging the debt, promising to pay one-half of the remaining debt with interest, and promising to assist Plaintiff in collecting the remaining one-half of the debt from Defendant. In October 2010, Plaintiff sued Defendant in small claims court for one-half of the remaining debt and a portion of the travel costs he had allegedly incurred attempting to collect the debt. Defendant removed the action to district court and demanded a jury trial. After a trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $6,641.29, one-half of the remaining debt plus interest. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or relief from the judgment. The district court impliedly denied Defendant's motions, instead entering an order awarding Plaintiff costs and attorney fees. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the alleged oral loan agreement was barred by the statute of frauds. View "Kohanowski v. Burkhardt" on Justia Law

Gerald Middleton appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and corruption of a minor. Middleton argued the district court erred in denying his motion to release the victim's medical records and the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Middleton failed to properly preserve the issues he raised on appeal. View "North Dakota v. Middleton" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Human Services ("the Department") appealed a district court judgment reversing the Department's order determining Edward Ennis was ineligible for continued Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits. Ennis cross-appealed, challenging the district court's denial of his motion for costs. Ennis, self-employed, purchased a truck for $5,238 for use in his business. He paid for the truck in full and thus did not make ongoing payments. In March 2011, the County conducted a periodic recertification review to determine Ennis's continued eligibility for SNAP benefits. The County calculated his anticipated 2011 self-employment income based upon his actual 2010 self-employment income, without deducting the $5,238 expense for the truck. Based on this calculation, the County determined Ennis's anticipated 2011 income exceeded the income limit for SNAP benefits and issued a denial of benefits. Ennis appealed to the Department and requested a hearing. An administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and order determining that the purchase price of the truck should have been deducted from Ennis's anticipated 2011 self-employment income and recommending that the County's denial of further benefits be reversed. The executive director of the Department disagreed with the ALJ's recommendation and issued amended findings, conclusions and final order affirming the County's determination that Ennis was not entitled to further SNAP benefits. Ennis appealed to the district court, which reversed the Department's final order and reinstated the recommended findings of the ALJ. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment and reinstated the Department's final order denying further benefits. View "Ennis v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law