Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Michael Nakvinda appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder, robbery, burglary, and theft in connection with the death of Philip Gattuso, Jr., and the theft of Gattuso's Porsche Boxster automobile. Defendant specifically argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict because the State failed to place him at the crime scene in Gattuso's home. He contended he could not be convicted of murder, robbery, burglary, or theft unless the State proved his presence at the crime scene. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. View "North Dakota v. Nakvinda" on Justia Law

Defendant John Wetzel appealed the revocation of his probation. In 2008, Defendant was convicted of two counts of terrorizing, one count of aggravated assault, one count of reckless endangerment, and one count of criminal mischief. The district court sentenced Defendant to a deferred sentence for a period of five years and ordered Defendant placed on supervised probation during that period. The court ordered standard probation conditions, including that Defendant not commit any new offenses and that he refrain from excessive use of alcohol. In 2010, Defendant was involved in an altercation at a Bismarck sports bar. He stabbed the owner in the leg during the scuffle. The next day the State petitioned to revoke his probation, alleging he violated probation by committing an aggravated assault and using alcohol. Defendant was found not guilty of aggravated assault. Defendant argued collateral estoppel or res judicata prohibited the State from relitigating the offense of aggravated assault in the probation revocation proceedings, because a jury acquitted him of that offense before the revocation hearing. The Supreme Court was unpersuaded by his argument. The Court found that there was evidence to support the trial court's findings that he excessively used alcohol and committed a new offense. Accordingly, the Court held the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the revocation of Defendant's probation. View "North Dakota v. Wetzel" on Justia Law

Petitioner Darl Hehn appealed a district court order that denied his petition for release from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Petitioner argued on appeal that clear and convincing evidence did not support the district court's finding that he was likely to engage in future sexually predatory acts, and the district court did not make sufficient factual findings to support continuing his commitment. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to make sufficient findings. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Matter of Hehn" on Justia Law

Defendant Kyle Mackey appealed a district court order that amended his sentence and denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court's original sentence was illegal, and he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because a manifest injustice occurred as a result of the court's original sentence. Defendant was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition. The State alleged that between July 1, 2009, and September 4, 2009, Defendant, then a twenty-two-year-old police officer, had engaged in a sexual act on three occasions with T.C., a fourteen-year-old female. The State and Defendant entered into a binding plea agreement that provided Defendant would plead guilty to the first count of gross sexual imposition, the second count would be subject to a pretrial diversion for ten years, and the remaining charges against Defendant would be dismissed. Under the plea agreement, Defendant would argue for the minimum mandatory sentence of five years while the State would "argue for more, with a cap of 15 years." The court took the plea agreement under advisement and ordered a presentence investigation. After obtaining different counsel, Defendant appealed the criminal judgment. While that appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, Defendant filed a motion with the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming the district court had imposed a sentence greater than the maximum contained in the plea agreement. In an amended criminal judgment, the district court referenced a memorandum dated January 31, denied Mackey's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding withdrawal of Mackey's guilty plea was not necessary to correct a "manifest injustice." View "North Dakota v. Mackey" on Justia Law

The State appealed three orders that dismissed several controlled substance-related charges against Defendant William Joseph Nickel. After receiving the Governor's approval of its request to engage in emergency rulemaking, the State Pharmacy Board (Board) held a public meeting to consider an emergency interim final rule adding seven substances, including synthetic THC or cannabinoids and mephedrone, to the list of prohibited substances under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. These substances, commonly labeled "Spark" and "Stardust," are marketed as bath salts and incense in "head shops" throughout the state. In May, July and August 2010, Defendant was charged with several violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act based on the substances that were criminalized by the interim final rule. Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the interim final rule was invalid. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted Defendant's motions. Relying on the reasoning of two prior unappealed district court decisions holding the interim final rule invalid, the court found the Board "did not substantially comply with the notice requirement applicable to the adoption of an emergency rule and therefore the emergency rule is invalid." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court's finding the Board did not substantially comply with the requirement under N.D.C.C. 28-32-03(5) (2009) that it "take appropriate measures to make interim final rules known to every person who may be affected by them" was not clearly erroneous. The district court therefore did not err in dismissing the charges against Defendant because the emergency interim final rule upon which those charges are based was invalid at the time the alleged crimes were committed. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision and all three orders. View "North Dakota v. Nickel" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Alman Wong appealed a district court order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. In August 2009, Wong pled guilty to gross sexual imposition and aggravated assault. After he entered his plea but before sentencing, Wong's attorney moved to have Wong evaluated to determine his fitness to proceed and his criminal responsibility. The motions were granted. In October 2009, a new attorney was assigned to Wong's case. A doctor at the North Dakota State Hospital attempted to evaluate Wong, but he refused to undergo the assessment. In December 2009, Wong was sentenced to life imprisonment without the benefit or possibility of parole on the gross sexual imposition charge and to five years imprisonment on the aggravated assault charge. Wong did not appeal his conviction or sentence. In 2010, Wong filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming his conviction was obtained by an unlawfully induced guilty plea because he was incompetent, failure by the prosecution to disclose evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court summarily dismissed his petition. Wong appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In early 2011, the district court held a hearing on Wong's petition. Following the hearing, the district court denied Wong's petition, finding there was no evidence to support his claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Wong failed to establish a basis for post-conviction relief. View "Wong v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The City of Dickinson appealed a district court order that granted Defendant Lola Hewson's motion to suppress evidence obtained after a law enforcement officer stopped her vehicle. In August 2010, Rodney Hewson called 911 sometime after midnight to report that his wife, Lola Hewson, had left their residence after he had tried to prevent her from leaving. Rodney Hewson told the dispatcher that Defendant had been drinking "big time," was intoxicated, and had nearly hit him with her vehicle as she backed up to leave. Rodney Hewson told the dispatcher that they had better catch her before she kills herself or someone else. On the way to Rodney Hewson's residence, a City police officer saw a red Oldsmobile as described by Rodney Hewson to the emergency dispatcher. The officer proceeded to follow the vehicle until he was close enough to read the license plate. The officer relayed the plate number to dispatch and received information that the vehicle was registered to a "Lola" with a different last name, but with the same address provided by dispatch. The officer then initiated a traffic stop. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle, and the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "City of Dickinson v. Hewson" on Justia Law

Defendant Johnathan Vondal appealed criminal judgments entered against him after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and continuous sexual abuse of a child. Defendant argued on appeal that it was obvious error to prosecute him as an adult for acts committed before he was fourteen years old, that his due process rights were violated by multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct, that the district court abused its discretion and violated his confrontation rights by prohibiting testimony about the victim's state of mind and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After careful consideration of the applicable legal authority and the trial court record, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. The Court affirmed Defendant's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Vondal" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Defendant Michael Woodrow's motion to dismiss five counts of gross sexual imposition, class A felonies, based on a lack of jurisdiction. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. 27-20-34(8), the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Woodrow" on Justia Law

Defendant Chadley Overlie appealed a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In 2009, Overlie pled guilty to one count of violation of a domestic violence protection order--second or subsequent offense. Under a binding plea agreement, the district court sentenced Defendant to one year and suspended all but thirteen days for two years, with supervised probation. Defendant's probation was later revoked when he violated the conditions of his probation. The district court then re-sentenced Defendant to two years of incarceration. In June 2010, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to reduce his sentence. Subsequently, Defendant filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief, alleging "[e]vidence, not previously presented and heard, exists requiring vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice[.]" The court dismissed Defendant's application without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court found there was no evidence in the record that Defendant had requested to offer. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the district court erred in summarily dismissing Defendant's application. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Overlie v. North Dakota" on Justia Law