Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement discovered a handgun in a vehicle parked outside a bar while the defendant was inside the bar. The defendant, who was previously convicted of a qualifying offense, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. At trial, the defendant objected to the proposed jury instructions regarding the definition of “possession,” arguing that the instructions failed to require proof of intent as allegedly mandated by recent amendments to the relevant statute. The defendant also moved for a judgment of acquittal, asserting insufficient evidence linked him to the vehicle containing the gun. The court denied the motion, and the jury returned a guilty verdict.The District Court of Ward County presided over the trial. The defendant’s objections to the jury instructions were overruled, and the motion for judgment of acquittal was denied. After conviction, the defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its jury instructions by not requiring the State to prove intent to possess the firearm and by not entering a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence that the handgun qualified as a “firearm” under the law.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and held that, under the amended statute, intent is required only for convictions based on constructive possession, not for actual possession, and the district court’s jury instructions properly reflected this distinction. The Court also held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a rational fact finder to conclude the handgun was functional, as required by statute, and thus the district court did not commit obvious error by failing to enter a judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Luetzen" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with practicing law without a license after submitting court filings on behalf of another individual in a criminal case in Wells County, North Dakota. The filings included motions and related documents, each signed to indicate the defendant was representing the incarcerated individual. The State filed charges based on these actions, and after pretrial proceedings, the case proceeded to a jury trial.Prior to trial, the District Court of Wells County addressed several motions. The defendant’s motion to dismiss, based on alleged unlawful access by law enforcement to jail communications, was denied as untimely under the court’s pretrial order and applicable procedural rules. The State’s motion to amend the information to expand the offense date was granted after the court found no additional or different offense was charged and no substantial right was prejudiced. The court also ruled, over the defendant’s objection, that the offense of practicing law without a license was a strict liability crime under North Dakota law, and removed the requirement of a culpable mental state from the jury instructions. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the district court entered a criminal judgment and sentenced the defendant.On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant raised several issues. The court only considered those claims that were properly preserved and sufficiently briefed. The Supreme Court found the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss as untimely, allowing amendment of the information, or removing the mens rea element from the jury instructions. The Supreme Court held that the statute under which the defendant was convicted is a strict liability offense, and the jury instructions accurately reflected the law. The criminal judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Olson" on Justia Law

Authorities responded to a residence to investigate an alleged assault involving a young child. Upon arrival, social workers and a detective entered the property through an open garage door, which led to an interior entryway. The resident, Shantel Lais, allowed them inside. Once inside, the detective observed hazardous conditions, including accessible firearms, open alcohol, drugs, and drug paraphernalia within reach of a two-year-old child. As a result, Christopher Golberg was charged with child neglect, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm.Prior to trial in the District Court of Mercer County, South Central Judicial District, Golberg moved to suppress evidence obtained during the search, arguing the detective unlawfully entered the garage without a warrant or consent, thus tainting the evidence subsequently gathered. A suppression hearing was held, where the detective testified that the garage functioned as the main entrance due to home construction and that the exterior door was open. The district court found that Golberg did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the garage under these circumstances and denied the motion to suppress. At trial, Golberg twice moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that he did not reside at the house; both motions were denied. The jury found Golberg guilty of child neglect and not guilty on the other charges.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota considered whether the denial of the suppression motion and the sufficiency of the evidence were erroneous. The court held that the open garage, serving as the main access point and lacking express signs restricting entry, did not afford Golberg a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, no unlawful search occurred. The court also found that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict on child neglect. The amended criminal judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Golberg" on Justia Law

The case centers on the disappearance of Alice Queirolo in Minot, North Dakota, in December 2020. Queirolo, who was medically vulnerable due to a brain tumor and lived with two roommates, including Shawnee Krall, maintained daily contact with her family and coworkers to monitor her health. After she failed to report to work and did not respond to welfare checks, law enforcement investigated and discovered a series of circumstantial evidence including surveillance footage, witness testimony, and Krall’s behavior following her disappearance. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Queirolo’s disappearance was uncharacteristic, that Krall was uncooperative during the investigation, and that Krall made statements to another inmate admitting to killing the victim. There was no direct evidence, such as a body or autopsy results, due to suppression of evidence from a warrantless search.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, presided over a five-day jury trial. The jury found Krall guilty of intentional or knowing murder under North Dakota law. Krall was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, Krall argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, primarily because it was circumstantial and did not conclusively tie him to Queirolo’s death. He also challenged the district court’s refusal to give his requested jury instruction that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational jury to find Krall guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, reasoning that circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence. The court also held that the district court did not err in giving the standard pattern jury instruction on circumstantial evidence and explicitly overruled prior decisions requiring the “exclude every reasonable hypothesis” instruction. The conviction and judgment were affirmed. View "State v. Krall" on Justia Law

After filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, which was dismissed, the petitioner sent emails to the employer’s counsel that led to state criminal charges for terrorizing in Cass County, North Dakota. At trial in state district court, the petitioner was convicted by a jury and sentenced to jail time with probation. During her probation, she was found to possess a firearm, resulting in revocation of probation and a new sentence.The petitioner appealed her criminal conviction to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the State’s failure to preserve and disclose evidence constituted a Brady violation and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed her conviction. Subsequently, in the district court, the petitioner sought postconviction relief, alleging constitutional violations, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unlawful withholding of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. She also moved to disqualify the presiding judge. The district court summarily dismissed her application, finding most claims barred by res judicata or misuse of process, and denied the motion for disqualification after a hearing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s rulings. It held that the district court erred by summarily dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing, as the State had not moved for summary disposition on those claims. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. It affirmed the dismissal of the other claims, finding the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, correctly denied the motion to disqualify the judge, and properly dismissed other claims as procedurally barred or lacking merit. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the ineffective assistance claim. View "Pederson v. State" on Justia Law

Antonio Eugenio Medina entered a guilty plea following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case. Medina, his attorney, the prosecutor, and the district court discussed and appeared to agree that his plea was conditional, allowing him to reserve the right to appeal the suppression ruling. However, the written judgment did not specify that the plea was conditional as required by the applicable procedural rule.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over Medina’s plea hearing and subsequent proceedings. Despite indications in the transcript that all parties consented to a conditional plea, the court did not issue a written order or judgment expressly stating that the plea was conditional, nor did the record contain written consents as required by N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). Medina appealed, arguing that his plea should be recognized as conditional so that he could pursue an appeal of the suppression decision.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the record and found that while the transcript reflected substantial compliance with the requirements for a conditional plea, the absence of a written order and a judgment specifying that the plea was conditional did not satisfy the explicit requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), as amended in 2017. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to clarify whether it accepted a conditional plea and, if so, to enter an order and correct the judgment to properly reflect the conditional nature of the plea. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction pending the district court’s clarification. The holding requires district courts to strictly comply with the procedural requirements for conditional pleas under Rule 11(a)(2), including written consents, a court order, and a judgment specifying the plea is conditional. View "State v. Medina" on Justia Law

Niko Solis was charged with indecent exposure, a class A misdemeanor, after engaging in conduct outside a courthouse near a school. He entered a guilty plea to the charge. The State requested that Solis be required to register as a sex offender, while Solis argued that the court should exercise its discretion to deviate from the registration requirement, citing statutory criteria that permit deviation under certain circumstances.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, presided by Judge Stacy J. Louser, sentenced Solis to 360 days’ imprisonment with all but one day suspended, imposed two years of supervised probation, and required Solis to register as a sex offender under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(b). The court acknowledged its discretion to deviate from registration but ultimately declined to do so, citing concerns about the nature of Solis’s conduct and his explanation for it. Solis appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion and failed to make specific findings required for deviation.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal under an abuse of discretion standard. It held that the statute’s language allows the court discretion to deviate from the registration requirement if certain criteria are met, but does not mandate deviation even if those criteria are satisfied. The Supreme Court determined that the district court’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and that it was the result of a rational process. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment and the requirement that Solis register as a sex offender. View "State v. Solis" on Justia Law

In March 2024, Christopher Bauer was charged with disorderly conduct following an incident in Williston, North Dakota. He retained legal counsel and the case proceeded to a jury trial, at the conclusion of which Bauer was acquitted. After his acquittal, Bauer submitted a motion seeking reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs incurred during the defense of his criminal prosecution.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over by Judge Kirsten M. Sjue, reviewed Bauer’s post-judgment motion. The court denied his request for attorney’s fees and costs, determining that Bauer had not established a legal basis for recovering such expenses in the context of the criminal proceeding. Bauer also argued that the district court judge committed misconduct warranting discipline, but the court’s order did not address this allegation, and there was no indication that the issue had been properly raised or preserved during district court proceedings.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota considered whether the district court’s post-judgment order was appealable and addressed the merits of Bauer’s requests. The Supreme Court held that Bauer’s motion for recovery of attorney’s fees, which sought reimbursement of property allegedly expended in connection with the criminal action, constituted a substantial right under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06(5), making the order appealable. However, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Bauer’s motion, finding he had not shown entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs in the criminal case. The Supreme Court also declined to consider Bauer’s judicial misconduct claim on appeal, as it had not been preserved in the trial court. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "City of Williston v. Bauer" on Justia Law

After pleading guilty to felony child neglect, the defendant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with three years suspended, credit for 375 days already served, supervised probation, and restitution. Following his release, the State alleged that the defendant violated multiple conditions of his probation. At a probation revocation hearing, the defendant waived his right to counsel and admitted the violations, leading the district court to revoke his probation. The court orally stated the defendant would receive credit for two years plus the time he spent in custody after being arrested on the probation violation warrant, which amounted to twenty-four days.The written order issued after the revocation hearing, however, erroneously recorded the credit for time served as “3 years and 34 days” instead of the correct “2 years and 24 days.” The State moved to correct this mistake under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, arguing it was a clerical error that conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. The District Court of McHenry County granted the State’s motion, found the original written order contained a clerical error, and issued an amended order reflecting the proper credit. The defendant appealed, arguing that the correction improperly reduced his credit for time served and conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. He also asserted his constitutional right to counsel was violated when the court did not appoint an attorney to represent him in the Rule 36 proceedings.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s orders. It held that the correction was a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion under Rule 36 to remedy a clerical error in the judgment so that it accurately reflected the oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing. The court also concluded that the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not violated because the correction of a clerical error under Rule 36 is not a critical stage of the prosecution. View "State v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with simple assault following an incident in April 2022. Throughout the proceedings, he was represented by a series of court-appointed attorneys. The first attorney was replaced due to a change in employment. The next two attorneys withdrew, one citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and the other a conflict of interest. Each time, a new attorney was appointed. Upon the withdrawal of the fourth appointed attorney, due to a deteriorated attorney-client relationship and the defendant’s insistence on pursuing an unethical defense, the defendant was informed by court order that no further counsel would be provided at public expense. He was served with the withdrawal orders but was not present at every hearing. At a pretrial hearing the day before trial, the defendant again requested appointed counsel, but the court required him to proceed pro se if he had not retained a lawyer by the next day. The defendant represented himself at trial and was convicted.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over the pretrial proceedings, withdrawals, and trial. The court concluded that, given the repeated breakdowns with counsel and explicit orders, the defendant’s conduct constituted the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel, and therefore required him to proceed without appointed counsel.Upon review, the Supreme Court of North Dakota found that, although the defendant’s actions amounted to a functional waiver of his right to counsel, the record did not establish that such waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. Specifically, the court noted the absence of a warning or explanation to the defendant regarding the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation prior to his final attorney’s withdrawal. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the defendant’s waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent as required by law. View "State v. Hoff" on Justia Law