Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bryen Birkholz appealed a judgment ordering him to forfeit $44,140 in currency seized during a search of his residence and an order denying his motion for a new trial. In August 2010, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for Birkholz's residence and found eleven growing marijuana plants, a hydration system for the plants, three bags containing various amounts of marijuana, several empty bags, drug paraphernalia, and $44,140 in currency in a safe in a desk near the marijuana. In May 2011, Birkholz pled guilty to manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Birkholz argued the district court erred in applying the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to currency he claimed was seized under the authority of N.D.C.C. 29-31.1-03. He also claimed there was insufficient evidence of a transaction to justify a forfeiture of the currency under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3(1)(d) and the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Birkholz did not raise an issue in the district court about the applicability of the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to this case and could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The Court also concluded the court's findings supporting forfeiture were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Birkholz's motion for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. $44,140 U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

Strata Corporation and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim against United Crane & Excavation, Inc., after the district court certified the partial summary judgment as final under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Because this case did not represent the "infrequent harsh case for immediate appeal and subsequent proceedings in the district court may moot the issue raised on appeal," the district court improvidently certified the partial summary judgment as final and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "City of Mandan v. Strata Corp." on Justia Law

Dale Burke appealed a judgment dismissing his application for post-conviction relief after the district court denied his motion for DNA testing. In 1998, Burke was convicted of murdering Edmund Huotari and Larry Nelson, and for committing arson to conceal the bodies. Burke appealed the criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of murder and one count of arson. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err in denying Burke's request for DNA testing under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-15 and the court did not err in summarily denying his post-conviction relief application. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of Burke's application for post-conviction relief. View "Burke v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Kruckenberg appealed a the trial court order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. Defendant was charged with delivery of methamphetamine. The State filed a notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding, alleging Defendant had previously been convicted of three other methamphetamine-related felonies. The State filed an amended notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding and a jury trial was held. The amended notice was the same in all respects as the original notice, except it excluded one of the previously alleged prior convictions. Defendant was subsequently convicted of delivery of methamphetamine. Following the trial, a bifurcated hearing was held. At the hearing, the trial court first found Defendant was a habitual offender and then sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed his conviction, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Then Defendant applied for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he contended the trial court erred because it did not address his claims of an illegal sentence resulting from alleged defects in the amended notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding, and the court erred by not determining he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to the alleged defects in the amended notice of intent to seek habitual offender finding. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the trial court's order denying the application for post-conviction relief to allow the trial court to make detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to address Defendant's arguments that his sentence was imposed in violation of North Dakota's habitual offender statute and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to raise the issue. View "Kruckenberg v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.A. appealed a juvenile court order terminating parental rights to his daughter, A.W. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the court's findings that J.A. abandoned the child, that the child was deprived, and that the conditions and causes of the deprivation were likely to continue were supported by clear and convincing evidence and were not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of A.W." on Justia Law

Cornel Kilber appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the Grand Forks Public School District No. 1 ("District") decision to discharge him from his teaching position with the District for conduct unbecoming the position of a teacher. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Kilber was not denied a fair discharge hearing and that any claimed procedural errors that occurred during the hearing were harmless. View "Kilber v. Grand Forks Public School District" on Justia Law

Defendant Kyle T. Mackey appealed a trial court's order for amended judgment and amended judgment denying and dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In April 2010, Defendant pled guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition ("GSI") and another count of GSI was diverted for the duration of Defendant's imprisonment and probation. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty years in prison. The court ordered Defendant to serve eight years and suspended the remaining twenty-two years for five years. Defendant appealed. In early 2011, while the appeal was pending, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the sentence did not conform to the plea agreement and alleging the sentence was illegal. The trial court amended Defendant's sentence, reducing it to fifteen years, and Defendant filed a second appeal of the court's order. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order amending his sentence and denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea; he claimed he lacked an understanding of the law in relation to the facts of his case and his plea was not voluntary. The trial court dismissed Defendant's application. Defendant unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, and for the first time, alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Between the testimony of the facts underlying Defendant's GSI offense during the sentencing hearing and the factual allegations contained in the criminal information, a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea was established. Defendant's remaining arguments were not meritorious, and the Supreme Court declined to address them on appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment dismissing Defendant's application for post-conviction relief. View "Mackey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Travis Trainor Lutz appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to the charge of driving under the influence. In September 2011, Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and submitted to a blood draw, which was conducted by a nurse. The State notified Defendant of its intent to introduce an analytical report at trial under N.D.R.Ev. 707. Defendant objected and demanded the State produce the arresting officer, the nurse who drew his blood sample, the lab analysts, including Stephanie Kleinjan, who conducted the chemical test, and Lisa Hentges, who prepared the volatiles solution used during the chemical test, and any evidence custodians or mail clerks involved in the matter. Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the analytical report without the requested witnesses' presence at trial. The State opposed Defendant's motion, arguing it was in compliance with N.D.R.Ev. 707 because it planned to call Kleinjan and the arresting officer at trial. The district court held a hearing on the matter and denied Defendant's motion in limine. Defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court's decision on his motion in limine. Defendant and the State filed a stipulation for the conditional plea, and the district court entered a criminal judgment. Rule 707, N.D.R.Ev., when read with N.D.C.C. 39-20-07, requires the State to produce at trial the nurse who drew Defendant's blood sample. The rule does not require the State to produce the individual who prepared the volatiles solution, the mail carriers, or the evidence custodians. Because the Supreme Court concluded the State was required to produce at trial the nurse who drew Defendant's blood, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Lutz" on Justia Law

Defendant Sarah Pavlicek appealed a criminal judgment entered against her after a jury found her guilty of abuse or neglect of a child. Defendant lived with her boyfriend, their son, Defendant's daughter from a previous relationship, and L.B., the boyfriend's daughter from a previous relationship. In October 2010, a teacher at L.B.'s school received a phone call from Defendant regarding a mark on L.B.'s face. When L.B. arrived at school, the teacher was suspicious of the mark on L.B.'s face and also found bruises on L.B.'s back. The teacher followed school reporting procedures, and Burleigh County Social Services became involved. The teacher testified that when Defendant arrived at the school to discuss L.B.'s injuries with the staff, she did not seem concerned about L.B. On appeal, Defendant argued the guilty verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and claims the jury rendered legally inconsistent verdicts. Defendant also contended the court erred by "refus[ing] to give a proper jury instruction on parental discipline." Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Defendant's conviction was supported by competent evidence, the jury verdicts were not legally inconsistent, and the court did not err in denying Defendant's requested jury instruction. View "North Dakota v. Pavlicek" on Justia Law

Defendant Anthony Perales appealed an amended criminal judgment that revoked his probation and imposed a sentence of fourteen years' incarceration followed by five years supervised probation. Defendant argued on appeal that the sentence was illegal because the district court lacked authority to impose probation and that fourteen years' incarceration was cruel and unusual punishment. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court concluded that the district court erred by ordering Defendant to serve additional probation following his release. View "North Dakota v. Perales" on Justia Law