Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State of North Dakota, through Williams County Assistant State's Attorney Nathan Kirke Madden, petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to vacate a pretrial order requiring the State to produce the Director of the State Crime Laboratory at trial in the prosecution of James Christianson for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The State argued the district court misinterpreted N.D.R.Ev. 707 to require the State to produce the Director for Christianson's criminal trial. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the district court to vacate its order, concluding that the record did not establish that the Director made any testimonial statements in an analytical report assessing Christianson's blood-alcohol content. View "North Dakota, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Tresenriter appealed criminal judgments entered after a jury verdict found him guilty of 22 counts of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, two counts of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, one count of terrorizing, one count of child endangerment, and one count of simple assault. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Tresenriter failed to properly preserve issues for appeal when he did not timely object to admission of results of a buccal swab DNA test and did not move to consolidate the multiple conspiracy charges into a single conspiracy count. View "North Dakota v. Tresenriter" on Justia Law

Defendant Esteban Dominguez was charged with attempted murder and terrorizing after he allegedly threatened David Nelson with a .22 caliber rifle. When Nelson began to run away, Dominguez allegedly shot at Nelson four times. Defendant appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict and request a new trial after he was found guilty of attempted murder and terrorizing. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the order and dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

Daniel Herzig appealed a jury verdict which found him guilty of criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor. Under "North Dakota v. Meyer," (361 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 1985)), the Supreme Court concluded this dispute was ill-suited for a criminal action and instead should have been resolved in a civil action because there existed a legitimate dispute as to whether the area upon which Mr. Herzig was alleged to have trespassed was a public road by prescription under N.D.C.C. 24-07-01. Under "Meyer," the Court reversed the judgment and remand to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "North Dakota v. Herzig" on Justia Law

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