Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On November 1, 2010, after speaking with her financial institution, Capitol Credit Union, and noting suspicious withdrawals from her savings account, Heidi Blum notified the Mandan Police Department about two unauthorized uses of her automated teller machine ("ATM") card. Blum claimed someone used her ATM card at two separate locations in Mandan to withdraw $165 from her bank account without her consent. During her conversation with Capitol Credit Union, Blum learned that Capitol Credit Union had mailed a new ATM card to her address and that it had separately mailed to the same address a corresponding personal identification number. Blum, however, had moved and no longer lived at that address. As part of the investigation, a Mandan police officer learned Defendant Steven Schmidt and his girlfriend resided at the address where Capitol Credit Union had mailed Blum's new ATM card and corresponding personal identification number. Defendant would later be charged with theft for having used the ATM card to make the withdrawals. He appealed his conviction; the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and his proposed jury instruction, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his pre-trial motion. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

In 2008, Defendant Vicente Chacano was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition for having sexual contact with a victim less than fifteen years old. Defendant was charged with three additional counts of gross sexual imposition for conduct involving the same victim. The State moved to dismiss one count in the first complaint because the same charge was included in the second complaint. The district court granted the motion. The district court held a preliminary hearing on the charges in both complaints. The district court found probable cause to bind over Defendant for trial, and the State filed an information for each case. The Adams County State's Attorney moved to dismiss all charges against Defendant in 2009. The motion included the written statement: "To prevent a possible miscarriage of justice a further investigation is necessary." Defendant did not object to the dismissal. The district court granted the motion and dismissed all charges without prejudice. Then in 2010, an assistant attorney general filed a complaint charging Defendant with three counts of gross sexual imposition for conduct involving the same victim and the same time period as the 2008 charges. The district court held a preliminary hearing on the 2010 charges. The district court found probable cause to bind over Defendant for trial, and the State filed an information. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges "on the grounds that contrary to the State of North Dakota's representations to [the district court judge] and Defendant no 'further investigation' of the case has been conducted since January 15, 2009 and Defendant is prejudiced by the State of North Dakota['s] failure to honor [its] representation and the refiling of the charges." After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to dismiss. In early 2011, Defendant was tried by a jury. The jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and not guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition. Defendant appealed the district court criminal judgment entered after the jury convicted him. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction: "The plain language of Rule 48(a) [of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure] applies to the dismissal of a criminal charge and does not require the prosecuting attorney to take any specific action before a charge dismissed without prejudice can be refiled. In this case, a state's attorney determined he did not have sufficient evidence to proceed on the 2008 charges and moved to dismiss. . . . A criminal charge dismissed without prejudice may be refiled within the applicable statutory period." View "North Dakota v. Chacano" on Justia Law

Defendant Mitchell Holbach appealed a municipal court judgment that summarily dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the judgment was not appealable, but considered Defendant's appeal under its supervisory jurisdiction. Defendant was convicted for driving under suspension and driving without insurance. The arresting officer mistakenly believed Defendant's last name was "Knutson," and a check on "Mitchell Knutson" revealed a bench warrant was out for Knutson's arrest. The officer stopped Defendant on the mistaken identity, discovered his mistake, and learned of Defendant's suspension. Defendant admitted to the officer that he had no insurance. Defendant pled guilty to both offenses in municipal court, and signed and dated an acknowledgement indicating he had been informed of and understood his rights. Several years later, Defendant filed this appeal, alleging his conviction was based on evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest. The Supreme Court held that post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 was not available in municipal courts in North Dakota. The Court concluded the judgment was void and directed the municipal court to dismiss Defendant's application. View "Holbach v. City of Minot" on Justia Law

Empower the Taxpayer, Charlene Nelson, and Robert Hale (collectively "Empower") appealed an order dismissing their request for injunctive relief against numerous state and local government officials and other entities. Empower supported North Dakota Initiated Constitutional Measure 2 to abolish property taxes which is on the June 2012 primary election ballot. In February 2012, Empower brought this action seeking injunctive relief against the defendants to prohibit them from, among other things, "advocating any position on Measure 2" and to declare them "no longer eligible to run for public office." Empower alleged the officials and entities had violated provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act by distributing false and misleading information about the effect of Measure 2. The district court dismissed the action, concluding "Empower lacks standing to bring this claim as the Corrupt Practices Act is a criminal law, the Defendants' actions did not violate Empower's legal rights, and the legislature did not imply a private right of action" for violation of the Act's provisions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding Empower failed to establish that there was a private right of action to enforce provisions of the North Dakota Corrupt Practices Act. View "Empower the Taxpayer v. Fong" on Justia Law

Respondents-Appellants Darlene Hankison, Michael Flick, Steven Flick, David Flick, landowners in Wells County, and Weckerly F.L.P., a landowner in Sheridan County, appealed a Wells County district court judgment and a Sheridan County district court order that denied their motions to dismiss and granted Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.'s petitions to enter their property to conduct testing and surveys. The Wells County district court held that for purposes of a petition to enter land for surveying and testing, Minnkota only needed to show it was in charge of a public use or it was in the category of persons entitled to seek eminent domain. The court determined Minnkota was in charge of a public use and also was entitled to seek eminent domain. The Sheridan County court held, under N.D.C.C. § 10-15-52, a foreign cooperative is entitled to all rights, exemptions, and privileges of a cooperative organized for the same purposes under the laws of this state when it is issued a certificate of authority from the secretary of state. Minnkota was issued a certificate of authority from the secretary of state, and it is organized to provide power to its members. Because North Dakota electric cooperatives have authority to use eminent domain, the court determined Minnkota also has the power to use eminent domain. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district courts did not err in concluding that Minnkota was entitled to seek the power of eminent domain under North Dakota law. View "Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Jens Lee appealed his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. He was stopped for speeding while riding his motorcycle. After failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary screening, Defendant was arrested and agreed to submit to an Intoxilyzer test. The in-car video showed that approximately four minutes later, while they sat in the patrol car waiting for assistance with the motorcycle, Lee twice told the arresting officer, "I hope you understand I've got to have Cash give me a good try." When the officer asked what he meant, Lee answered, "Cash Aaland," the name of a Fargo attorney. At the administrative hearing, the arresting officer testified Lee had stated that "he'd be getting a hold of Cash." The arresting officer admitted he understood "Cash" was a reference to Cash Aaland. After being transported to the police station, Lee made no further reference to an attorney before submitting to the Intoxilyzer test. The arresting officer did not provide Lee an opportunity to contact an attorney prior to administering the Intoxilyzer test. On appeal, Defendant contended the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the Intoxilyzer test results, claiming his statement to the arresting officer that "I've got to have Cash give me a good try" invoked his statutory right to consult with an attorney before submitting to the chemical test and triggered the officer's duty to provide a reasonable opportunity for Lee to do so. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion, and affirmed his conviction. View "North Dakota v. Lee" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Cecil H. Bell appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision to revoke his driving privileges for one year. Petitioner argued he was denied his statutory right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to a chemical test. Finding no denial of rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision. View "Bell v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust appealed a judgment that dismissed the Trust's claim against Richard and Brenda Jorgenson for reformation of two warranty deeds. Because the parties' claims to quiet title in the disputed mineral acres were not fully adjudicated and no N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification appeared in the record, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as premature. View "Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Douglas Kooser appealed a district court's denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued the district court erred by denying his request to withdraw his "Alford" plea and by finding he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no abuse of discretion nor a violation of his constitutional rights, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial. View "Kooser v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Mark Palmer appealed a district court's order that denied his motion for relief for post-conviction relief. In 2001, Petitioner was convicted of four counts of gross sexual imposition. He appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In February 2011, Petitioner applied for post-conviction relief, and an attorney was appointed to represent him. On March 1, 2011, the State responded to Petitioner's application and moved for summary dismissal. The district court denied Petitioner's application. His attorney moved on his behalf for relief from the order denying his post-conviction application, arguing Petitioner was entitled to relief from the order because of mistake or inadvertence. The district court denied the motion. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Petitioner argued the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not explain its rationale for denying Petitioner's motion for relief. The order denying the motion stated, "The motion for relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal [sic] Procedure and dated May 23, 2011, is in all things SUMMARILY DENIED." The court provided no explanation for denying Palmer's motion. Therefore, the Court remanded the case back to the district court for an explanation of its decision. View "Palmer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law