Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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