Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Constitutional Law
North Dakota v. Moses
Kengi Moses appealed an amended order deferring imposition of sentence entered upon a conditional plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Moses’ prior juvenile adjudication qualified as a predicate conviction under the statute prohibiting possession of a firearm following a criminal conviction and that he received due process under the law. View "North Dakota v. Moses" on Justia Law
North Dakota v. Peltier
Dalton Peltier appealed after a jury found him guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and three counts of terrorizing. Peltier argued he did not voluntarily waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or voluntarily make statements to law enforcement, and that there was insufficient evidence supporting his convictions. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding Peltier voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily made statements to law enforcement. Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude substantial evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction on all counts. The Supreme Court therefore summarily affirmed these issues under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (3). View "North Dakota v. Peltier" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
North Dakota v. Archambault
Zachary Archambault appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child, arguing the district court erred by granting a continuance and denying his motion for a mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Archambault" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
North Dakota v. Ismail
Zhiwar Ismail appealed after he was convicted on two counts of possession and delivery of a controlled substance. He argued on appeal he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to move for acquittal on all charges, and for failing to make certain objections at trial. Further, Ismail argued the trial court improperly questioned witnesses. Finding no reversible error in the trial court proceedings, and that his counsel did not render constitutionally ineffective assistance, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Ismail’s convictions. View "North Dakota v. Ismail" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
North Dakota v. Sapa
Michael Sapa was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. On appeal, he argued the district court erred by excluding evidence about the victim’s age. He claims two statutes, N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-01 and 14-10-01, created competing and confusing definitions of “minors.” He also argued N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01 was unconstitutionally vague. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Sapa’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. Sapa" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
North Dakota v. Peters
Cole Peters appealed his convictions for: terrorizing, two counts of gross sexual imposition, attempted murder, and felonious restraint. Peters argued on appeal that the State violated his right to a speedy trial, that the district court erred when it failed to exclude duplicate photographs of B.C., the victim, and that the court should have given a curative instruction to the jury on the duplicate pictures. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "North Dakota v. Peters" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Kratz v. North Dakota
Ryan Kratz appealed after the district court denied his motion seeking to correct an illegal sentence and dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. The court held Kratz had failed to sufficiently support his application and found it would not be equitable for the application to be heard pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the application for post-conviction relief. View "Kratz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
North Dakota v. Davis-Heinze
Wendy Davis-Heinze appealed her conviction for reckless endangerment. She argued on appeal that the district court conducted an off-the-record discussion with counsel outside the courtroom and outside of the view of the public in violation of her right to public trial under the Sixth Amendment. She also argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the non-public discussion was not a trial closure in violation of the Sixth Amendment public trial right. View "North Dakota v. Davis-Heinze" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Kuntz v. North Dakota
Jody Kuntz appealed a district court order denying her application for post-conviction relief. Kuntz was charged with criminal mischief and criminal trespass. Before trial, Kuntz pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced according to a negotiated agreement. Kuntz subsequently filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw her guilty pleas. Kuntz argued there was new evidence to show she was incompetent at the time she entered her guilty pleas and it would be a manifest injustice if she were unable to withdraw her guilty pleas. Finding no reversible error in the district court order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kuntz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Addai v. North Dakota
Elijah Addai appealed after a district court’s dismissed his request for post-conviction relief. Addai was convicted by jury of class AA felony murder for the fatal stabbing of David Delonais. Addai claimed the North Dakota Supreme Court’s discussion of public trials in North Dakota v. Martinez, 956 N.W.2d 772 (2021), created a new rule that had to be applied retroactively, was applicable to his case, and precluded the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed dismissal of the request for post-conviction relief. View "Addai v. North Dakota" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law