Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendants Timothy Deviley and Ryan Lee appealed the criminal judgments entered on their conditional guilty pleas for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and reserving the right to appeal the order denying their motions to suppress evidence. Deviley and Lee argued they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because they were detained without a reasonable and articulable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity. Lee further argued the length of time for the drug dog to arrive created a de facto arrest. Lee also argued the district court erred by denying a motion to reduce the charge against him because of inconsistent statutes. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying the motions to suppress evidence, concluding there was a reasonable and articulable suspicion the defendants were engaged in criminal activity, and there was no unreasonable delay creating a de facto arrest. Further, the Court concluded Lee was correctly charged with a Class A felony and affirmed the criminal judgments. View "North Dakota v. Deviley" on Justia Law

Petitioner Dennis Gaede appealed an order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. In 2006 a jury convicted Petitioner of murdering Timothy Wicks in Gardner, and the district court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In October 2008, Petitioner filed his application raising 23 issues. An attorney was appointed to represent him. On the State's motion, the district court summarily dismissed five of the issues on the basis of misuse of process and res judicata, and ordered an evidentiary hearing to consider the remaining issues. The court subsequently granted Petitioner's motion to supplement his application to allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise meritorious issues on direct appeal. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court rejected Petitioner's remaining allegations and denied his application for post-conviction relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in rejecting his claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and other alleged defects in his jury trial. The Court denied Petitioner's application and dismissed his appeal. View "Gaede v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Branden Clark appealed an order that denied his motion for correction of sentence. Defendant argued his sentences were illegal because they merged with his sentences in two other cases and his due process rights were violated by the delay in holding a hearing on the petition to revoke his probation. In January 2005, Defendant was convicted of theft by deception (a class C felony) for which he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison with fifteen suspended and three years probation in each case. In April 2005, Defendant was convicted of theft of property (a class C felony) for which he was sentenced to five years in prison with three suspended and five years probation. In November 2005, Defendant was convicted of theft of services (a class C felony), for which he was sentenced to five years in prison with three years suspended and three years probation. In December 2005, the State filed a petition to revoke Defendant's probation. In 2009, the district court entered an order revoking Defendant's probation in all of his 2005 cases, and resentenced him to serve five years' imprisonment in each case. Upon review of Defendant's lengthy criminal record and the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that Defendant's sentence was not illegal and his due process rights were not violated. The Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Defendant's motion for correction of sentence. View "North Dakota v. Clark" on Justia Law

Defendant Kyle Pederson appealed a district court order that denied his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant became a suspect in multiple armed robberies in the Grand Forks area. Police officers decided to arrest Defendant based on information a confidential informant provided. Law officers conducted surveillance on Defendant's house and followed him when he left his home with the informant. Defendant and the informant went to a motel and reserved a room. Later that night the informant left the motel room and met with law officers. Four officers went to the motel room, carrying firearms and dressed in SWAT t-shirts and body armor. Defendant was charged with multiple counts of robbery and multiple counts of drug possession. Defendant moved to suppress, arguing all evidence seized after he was arrested should be suppressed because he was illegally arrested at the motel without a warrant, and any statements he made during his interrogation should have been suppressed because he invoked the right to an attorney. After a hearing, the district court denied Defendant's motion, ruling officers lawfully entered the motel room because Defendant voluntarily consented to the entry. The court concluded the statements made during the interrogation should not have been suppressed because Defendant did not unambiguously request an attorney. Defendant conditionally plead guilty to the charges against him. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidence supports the court's findings, and the court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his statements. View "North Dakota v. Pederson" on Justia Law

Petitioner Paul Smestad appealed an order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. In December 2003, Petitioner pled guilty in Burleigh County to one count of theft by deception and one count of forgery. He was sentenced to three years in jail with all but eighteen months suspended and was placed on probation for three years following completion of his incarceration. In May 2008, a petition for extension of probation was filed because Petitioner had not fully paid restitution ordered under his initial sentence and an order was issued to extend Petitioner's probation for five years. After a hearing, the district court revoked his probation and sentenced him to three years in jail. Petitioner argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that he was entitled to post-conviction relief in part because documents that bore his signature extending his probation were not actually signed by Petitioner. The State opposed Petitioner's application claiming some issues raised were barred by res judicata. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Defendant's claim that his signature on a document extending his probation was not his signature was barred by res judicata. The Court denied Petitioner's application and dismissed his appeal. View "Smestad v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order that granted Defendant Kevin Gefroh's motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was stopped for traffic violations. Officers had a drug-sniffing dog walk around the vehicle during the traffic stop, while Defendant was still sitting in his vehicle, and the drug-sniffing dog indicated the presence of controlled substances at the passenger-side door of the vehicle. Defendant was asked to step out of his vehicle, and he complied. After a pat-down search of Defendant, officers discovered four bundles of white powder that tested positive for cocaine. Defendant was arrested after the officers discovered the cocaine. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Defendant made a motion to suppress his statements and all physical evidence obtained by law enforcement during the stop, arguing he was illegally seized and searched. The district court found there was no testimony indicating officers believed the soft object found from the pat down could be a weapon, and concluded officers lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion Defendant's pocket contained a weapon. On appeal, the State argued the district court erred in suppressing the cocaine evidence because the search of Defendant's person was within the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not justify the warrantless search of Defendant's person. The Court affirmed the district court's order to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Gefroh" on Justia Law