Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Larry Rubey appealed a district court order that denied his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court's order was not based on an erroneous view of the law and the court did not err in concluding the State established by clear and convincing evidence that Rubey remained a sexually dangerous individual. View "In re Rubey" on Justia Law

Defendant Gale Bruce appealed a judgment entered after the district court convicted him of menacing under N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-05. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the State presented sufficient evidence at trial for the court to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "North Dakota v. Bruce" on Justia Law

Defendant Rodney Chisholm appealed a criminal judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the death of his brother, Donald Chisholm. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to admit evidence that the victim had (several years earlier) brandished a firearm in disputes with another Chisholm brother. View "North Dakota v. Chisholm" on Justia Law

Defendant Kenneth Eide appealed a district court order that denied his motion to correct illegal sentences under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a) after the court discharged him from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual and amended five criminal judgments against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the order to the extent the court did not amend three of the criminal judgments, and reversed the order to the extent the court amended five of the criminal judgments because the court did not provide Eide with notice before modifying his probation. On January 3, 2011, the court amended at Defendant's request one of the three judgments it did not amend on December 27, 2010, extending his probation for five years after the expiration of his original probationary period. Defendant remained on probation under the terms of the court's January 3, 2011 order. View "North Dakota v. Eide" on Justia Law

Defendant Manmohan Garg appealed a district court order denying his motion to withdraw guilty pleas in two criminal cases. He argued the district court erred by denying the motion because his attorneys were constitutionally ineffective for failing to advise him of the deportation consequences of the plea agreements as required by the United States Supreme Court decision in "Padilla v. Kentucky," 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). Defendant was a non-citizen living in the United States. In April 2011, he received notice from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement that his immigration status was being revoked and that he was subject to deportation as a result of two previous criminal convictions in Ward County, North Dakota. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Even assuming Defendant's attorney failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of the 2000 guilty plea, Defendant could not prove prejudice because he knew the guilty plea could result in deportation as a result of his involvement in prior criminal proceedings. Because Defendant failed to prove prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his 2000 guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Garg" on Justia Law

Defendant Trevor Mertz appealed a district court criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of burglary. Defendant argued that: (1) after the jury retired for deliberation, the district court erred by providing an incorrect and misleading answer to the jury's request for instruction on the law; and (2) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the conviction. Defendant was charged with burglary for entering his ex-girlfriend's home and taking a television. Defendant was tried by a jury and testified at trial. Defendant admitted to entering the residence and taking the television but claimed the television did not belong to his ex-girlfriend. Defendant testified the television was his and he loaned it to his ex-girlfriend for their child's use. Two witnesses called by the State testified the television belonged to Defendant's ex-girlfriend. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Mertz" on Justia Law

Jordan Michael Engelhardt appealed a domestic violence protection order prohibiting him from having contact with Sara J. Rinas for twenty years. Engelhardt and Rinas, who were never married, have a minor child together. In 2011, after the relationship ended, Rinas filed a petition for protective relief from Engelhardt. Rinas alleged Engelhardt had been physically abusive on multiple occasions, one of which occurred while Engelhardt was holding their child. Rinas also alleged Engelhardt had threatened to kill her and she received threatening text messages from him. The district court granted a temporary domestic violence protection order and scheduled a hearing. In October 2011, Engelhardt filed a parenting time action, but no parenting time order had been issued. Despite Engelhardt's testimony at the hearing, he did not challenge the finding of domestic violence on appeal. Nor did he challenge the interpretation of the domestic violence protection order statute; rather, he argued the judicial referee abused his discretion by including the specific terms of relief in the protection order. Upon review, the Supreme Court modified the domestic violence protection order and affirmed it as modified. View "Rinas v. Engelhardt" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court's judgment reversing an administrative hearing officer's decision to suspend Petitioner's driving privileges for two years for driving under the influence of alcohol. "A reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded that the hearing officer's finding that [Petitioner] did not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke during the twenty minutes before the Intoxilyzer test" was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment and reinstated the administrative suspension of Petitioner's driving privileges. View "Thorsrud v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant Branden Clark appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of theft of property. On appeal, Defendant argued: the district court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instruction; insufficient evidence existed to support his conviction; his sentence was erroneous and excessive; and the court erred in admitting evidence the State failed to disclose before trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the trial court record, and that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Erling "Curly" Haugland appealed and Defendant-Appellee City of Bismarck cross-appealed a grant of summary judgment that declared North Dakota's Urban Renewal Law constitutional, and Bismarck's implementation of an urban renewal plan and use of tax increment financing to fund urban renewal projects in its urban renewal area compliant with the Act. Plaintiff claimed the Act violates the gift clause provisions of N.D. Const. art. X, section 18, the requirements for imposing taxes in N.D. Const. art. X, sections 3 and 5, and the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. He also claimed Bismarck's implementation of a perpetual urban renewal plan violated the Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court held the Act is constitutional, but the summary judgment record in this case did not establish whether Bismarck's renewal plan complied with the provisions of the Act. View "Haugland v. City of Bismarck" on Justia Law