Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Seibold appealed a district court order that denied her motions for a second amended judgment and to hold Defendant-Appellee Paul Leverington in contempt and denied her request for a hearing on her motions. Seibold and Leverington have one child together. In 2006, a judgment was entered finding Leverington is the child's natural father, awarded Seibold sole legal and physical custody of the child, and awarded Leverington visitation. In 2009, Leverington moved to modify custody. After a hearing, the district court entered an order finding there was a material change in circumstances and it was in the child's best interests to modify custody. The court awarded Leverington sole legal and physical custody of the child and awarded Seibold visitation. The court also addressed the parties' parental rights and responsibilities and ordered that both parents have certain rights and duties related to the child, including the right to access and obtain copies of certain records related to the child and the right to contact the child by phone. An amended judgment was entered in September 2009. In 2011, Seibold moved for a second amended judgment, but the district court denied her motions without holding a hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in denying Seibold's motions without providing her with sufficient time to schedule a hearing. The Court reversed the court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Seibold v. Leverington" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Wade Baesler appealed a district court's judgment that affirmed a Department of Transportation order suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. Because the Department failed to transmit a record compiled in the administrative proceedings, there was no evidence to support the Department's exercise of jurisdiction to suspend his license. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Baesler v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

As a condition of bail, the district court required Defendant Anna Hayes to consent to a warrantless search at any time of her person, vehicle, and residence. Concluding the bail condition was invalid under N.D.R.Crim.P. 46(a)(3), the Supreme Court reversed her convictions of four drug-related charges resulting from the bail-condition search. The Court affirmed her convictions of two prior unaffected charges. View "North Dakota v. Hayes" on Justia Law

Defendant Jose Pena Garcia appealed his conviction by jury of actual physical control. Defendant argued he was denied due process because the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor read case law to the jury during closing arguments. Officers testified at trial that while on patrol, they found Defendant "passed out and laying face down" on the driver's seat of his pickup truck with his legs outside the vehicle, with the motor still running. The officers testified that they shut off the engine, but neither could recall what happened to the vehicle's keys. Defendant presented testimony from his girlfriend that she drove him to his apartment earlier that evening, and that she left him in the vehicle because he fell asleep, and that she had the vehicle's keys inside the residence. The State presented evidence Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .198 percent within two hours of the officers finding him in the vehicle. After considering the State's comments within the context of the entire trial and the trial court's curative instruction to the jury, the Supreme Court concluded the prosecution's comments, if improper, did not result in an unfair trial and did not deprive Defendant of due process. View "North Dakota v. Pena Garcia" on Justia Law

"G.K.S." appealed a district court order finding G.K.S. chemically dependent and a person requiring treatment and that ordered him to undergo treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital for up to 90 days. Upon review, the Supreme Court dismissed G.K.S.'s appeal as moot because the court's involuntary commitment order was vacated. View "Interest of G.K.S." on Justia Law

"W.J.C.A." appealed district court orders for involuntary mental health treatment and medication. The orders committed W.J.C.A. to the North Dakota State Hospital for up to ninety days and allowed the State Hospital to treat him with medication during that time. In her petition, the probation officer stated W.J.C.A. was "making suicidal threats to his sisters along with leaving bizarre and rambling messages that threaten peopl[e]'s lives and appear out of touch with reality." The probation officer added W.J.C.A. had left such messages to "various [l]aw enforcement agencies" and "various people in the community[,]" asserting W.J.C.A. was "a danger to himself and others[.]" Upon review, the Supreme Court held the district court did not err in finding clear and convincing evidence to support its orders. View "Interest of W.J.C.A." on Justia Law

Defendant Steven Evans appealed from a Kidder County district court order denying his motion to amend judgment, and from a Burleigh County district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order that denied his motion to amend judgment. Defendant was sentenced in Kidder County to three years' imprisonment on charges of burglary and theft of property. He had criminal charges related to the same incident pending in Burleigh County at that time. At sentencing, the Kidder County State's Attorney recommended the Kidder County sentences run concurrently to the sentences Defendant would ultimately receive in Burleigh County. The Kidder County district court informed Defendant several times it could not bind the Burleigh County district court to run its sentences concurrently to the Kidder County sentences, and Defendant stated he understood. The Kidder County criminal judgment ordered Defendant's sentences "shall run concurrently and concurrently with [the] Burleigh County Case[s]." Defendant was subsequently sentenced in Burleigh County to five years' imprisonment with all but 180 days suspended on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, and 180 days' imprisonment on the charge of possession of marijuana by a driver. The Burleigh County criminal judgment ordered the sentences to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Defendant's Kidder County sentences. Defendant filed motions to amend judgment in both counties and a motion to reconsider in Burleigh County, all of which were denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Kidder County order denying Defendant's motion to amend judgment, but remanded and directed the Kidder County district court to correct its criminal judgment by deleting the provision that ordered the Kidder County sentences to run concurrently to the Burleigh County sentences. View "North Dakota v. Evans" on Justia Law

Defendants Andrew and Ricky Mittleider appealed a district court's judgment entered on their conditional guilty pleas relating to to illegal hunting, taking (or attempting to take) possession of big game, and hunting in a closed or restricted area. The Mittleiders moved to suppress all evidence entered against them at trial, arguing that the Game Warden and other law enforcement officials violated their reasonable expectation of privacy by entering their property to confiscate the weapon used to shoot the deer, photos taken of the deer and the deer itself because they had "no trespassing" signs posted. Defendants also filed a motion in limine to offer an affirmative defense of "mistake of fact": that they reasonably believed they were not hunting on a refuge because signs were not properly posted. The district court denied their motions, and Defendants appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendants' "no trespassing" signs did not created a reasonable expectation of privacy in the entrance of their property. As such, their right to a reasonable expectation of privacy was not violated. The Court affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Mittleider" on Justia Law

"J.T.N." appealed a district court order which found he remained a sexually dangerous individual and that denied his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. On appeal to the Supreme Court, J.T.N. argued the district court erred by denying his discharge petition because five of the six experts testified he was not a sexually dangerous individual. He did not contest the findings that he engaged in sexually predatory conduct and that he had an antisocial personality disorder. He argued the findings that he was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior were clearly erroneous. The State responded that the district court's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Finding that the district court did not apply an erroneous view of the law in determining J.T.N. remained a sexually dangerous individual, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and J.T.N.'s continued commitment. View "Matter of J.T.N." on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Ernest Coppage appealed an order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued the district court erred in dismissing his application and he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because there were genuine issues of material fact about his ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel claim. In 2006, Petitioner was charged with attempted murder. Before trial, the district court issued preliminary jury instructions to the parties including the essential elements of attempted murder and aggravated assault. Aggravated assault was characterized in the instructions as a lesser-included offense of attempted murder. The parties agreed these charges were the proper charges for the jury to consider. Petitioner filed a pre-trial motion in limine to prevent the State from seeking to introduce testimony about prior incidents of domestic violence. The State did not object and the district court granted the motion. The jury found Petitioner guilty of both attempted murder and aggravated assault. Petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing there was not sufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction and the verdict form was logically and legally inconsistent because proof of attempted murder negates a necessary element of aggravated assault. In 2009, the district court denied Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief which he did not appeal. In 2010, Petitioner filed his second application. Petitioner presented evidence that his failure to raise evidentiary and prosecutorial misconduct issues in prior proceedings was excusable because his post-conviction counsel was ineffective, which raised a genuine issue of material fact. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court erred in summarily dismissing Petitioner's claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law