Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Kari Ann Schmidt appealed a criminal judgment entered after a bench trial that found her guilty of criminal attempt to possess methamphetamine. Defendant raised the defense of entrapment. The court found she did not present sufficient evidence to establish an entrapment defense and found her guilty. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding substantial evidence existed to warrant the conviction and a rational trier of fact could have found Defendant failed to prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. However, because the judgment erroneously stated that it was entered upon a guilty plea, the Court remanded the case back to the district court to correct this clerical error. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Veronica Trevino appealed a criminal judgment entered after she conditionally pled guilty to reckless driving. The trial court held that reckless driving is a strict liability offense and that Trevino would therefore be precluded from raising the defense of lack of criminal responsibility by statute. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that reckless driving was a strict liability offense. Because the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in its decision, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded the for further proceedings to allow Defendant to withdraw her guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Trevino" on Justia Law

Petitioner Reginald Tweed appealed a district court's order that summarily dismissed his second application for post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued the district court erred in dismissing his application because the claims were not barred by res judicata or a misuse of process and his claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel are valid claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly dismissed Petitioner's evidentiary, ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial misconduct claims, but the court erred in summarily dismissing his claim for ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. View "Tweed v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Dickey Joseph Cain appealed a district court's criminal judgment and finding of habitual offender status entered after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit aggravated assault. Defendant argued the district court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence of the agreement required to establish a conspiracy, (2) finding he was a habitual offender based on certified copies of prior convictions at the same proceeding as the sentencing hearing, (3) denying his pretrial motion to dismiss due to violation of his right to a speedy trial and (4) denying his motion in limine to exclude photographs of the victim's injuries. Upon review of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment and Defendant's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Cain" on Justia Law

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