Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brandon Tompkins was convicted for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and actual physical control (“APC”). Tompkins argued on appeal of the convictions that the district court erred by providing jury instructions merging the offenses of driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor and refusal to submit to a chemical test, which allowed the jury to convict Tompkins without unanimously agreeing Tompkins committed a singular criminal act. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the offenses of driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor were separate offenses from the offense of refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the jury instructions improperly merged the offenses together. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Tompkins" on Justia Law

Brandon Grant appealed a third amended judgment after a jury found him guilty of three counts of attempted murder and three counts of aggravated assault. Grant argued the State’s peremptory strike of a potential juror was improper and the district court erred by denying the Batson challenge. He further argued insufficient evidence supported the conviction on counts one, two, four, and five. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Grant" on Justia Law

North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, on behalf of the State of North Dakota (“the State”), sought a supervisory writ to vacate a district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-12. The injunction was granted in Access Indep. Health Servs., Inc., et al. v. Wrigley, et al., Burleigh Co. Court No. 2022-CV- 01608. The State argued the district court abused its discretion in granting the injunction because Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic (“RRWC”) and the other plaintiffs failed to prove: (1) they had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) they would suffer irreparable injury; (3) there would be harm to other interested parties; and (4) the effect on the public interest weighed in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that while the regulation of abortion was within the authority of the legislature under the North Dakota Constitution, RRWC demonstrated likely success on the merits that there was a fundamental right to an abortion in the limited instances of life-saving and health-preserving circumstances, and the statute was not narrowly tailored to satisfy strict scrutiny. The Court granted the requested review, denied the relief requested in the petition, and left in place the order granting a preliminary injunction. View "Wrigley v. Romanick, et al." on Justia Law

Dacotah Ryder Hanson was found guilty by jury of leaving the scene of an accident involving death and manslaughter. In November 2018, a fatal motor vehicle rollover occurred near Tioga, North Dakota. Officers responded and observed a pickup truck lying on its passenger’s side in the middle of a field. Officers also observed a deceased male lying outside the passenger’s side door of the truck. The truck was registered to Hanson. At trial, law enforcement testified Hanson’s cell phone and pack of cigarettes were located in a field near the truck. Further evidence was presented, including handprints and other markings on the roof and driver’s side door, showing the driver had climbed out of the truck by the driver’s side. The markings led from the truck to the direction of Hanson’s residence. During closing argument, the State commented on Hanson’s lack of an explanation for his theory of the case. Part of Hanson’s defense theory suggested he was not the driver. The State asked how Hanson could have possibly extricated himself from underneath someone who is pinned under a truck. The defense objected on the grounds that the State was “coming dangerously close to saying the defendant needed to testify.” The objection was overruled. Hanson argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the State commenting on his right not to testify created reversible error. Hanson also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the criminal convictions. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hanson" on Justia Law

Dondarro Watts was convicted by jury of indecent exposure. Watts argued on appeal: (1) the district court abused its discretion regarding an evidentiary ruling; (2) the jury did not have sufficient evidence to convict him; (3) the court erred by providing misleading jury instructions; and (4) the court abused its discretion by requiring him to register as a sexual offender. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Watts" on Justia Law

Chad Isaak died after appealing a criminal judgment entered against him. His counsel argued the case should have either been dismissed because the judgment was not yet final, or the appeal should have been decided on the merits. The State argued the appeal was moot and the judgment should stand. No one sought substitution on Isaak’s behalf. The victims’ families did not assert a constitutional right to have the appeal proceed to disposition on the merits. The district court did not order restitution or fees. Absent any of these occurrences, and with no other apparent collateral consequences from a decision by the North Dakota Supreme Court, the Supreme Court concluded the appeal was moot and dismissed it. The judgment stood as issued by the district court. View "North Dakota v. Isaak" on Justia Law

Joshua Bowen appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in finding Bowen failed to make a clear and unambiguous request for an independent chemical test and in admitting the chemical breath test results without requiring the State to produce the state toxicologist at trial. View "North Dakota v. Bowen" on Justia Law

Trevon Thompson appealed a judgment and order denying a motion to suppress. In late 2021, the Devils Lake Police Department received a call about possible drug activity at a Devils Lake motel. The Department provided the information to the Lake Region Narcotics Task Force. The task force surveiled the motel and search warrants were obtained for two rooms at the motel. Officers ultimately found cash and baggies of oxycodone. The State charged Thompson with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and refusing to halt. Thompson moved to suppress the evidence obtained during execution of the three warrants, and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. Thompson argued the warrants were issued without probable cause. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in finding sufficient probable cause supported issuance of warrants I, II, and III. Sufficient additional probable cause existed to execute warrants I and II at night. The information used to obtain warrant III was not poisoned by prior illegal searches. Therefore, the evidence seized during execution of warrant III was not obtained unlawfully. View "North Dakota v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Stefan Dunn appealed after he pled guilty to three counts of violation of a domestic violence protection order and a single count of preventing arrest. The district court then asked Dunn multiple questions regarding his rights, if he understood the open plea agreement, and if he understood he would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if accepted by the court. Dunn answered affirmatively to these questions. Dunn pled guilty, was sentenced, and released. On July 20, 2022, Dunn wrote a letter to the district court requesting to withdraw his guilty plea because new evidence supported his innocence. The letter stated the victim attempted to drop the order for protection on numerous occasions but that it took approximately six months to do so, and that other defendants had their orders dropped much sooner. For those reasons, Dunn argued he was not guilty. The court issued an order denying his request. The court found that Dunn had not established a manifest injustice because the factual arguments in his letter were known by the parties and court during the plea and sentencing phases, and were taken into consideration at that time. The court also found that Dunn understood his plea was an open one, what consequences would result by agreeing to it, that he was giving up specific rights, and that he fully understood the plea. The district court determined Dunn entered his plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Shilo Knutson petitioned for a supervisory writ to overturn the district court’s order denying summary judgment and to direct the court to grant his motion for summary judgment on his post-conviction relief application. Because Knutson’s arguments could be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment disposing of his post-conviction relief application, or could potentially have been reviewed in a direct appeal from the underlying criminal case’s order revoking probation, the North Dakota Supreme Court declined to exercise discretion to grant supervisory relief. The Court therefore denied his petition. View "Knutson v. Foughty, et al." on Justia Law