Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Conrad Calvin Ziegler was charged with criminal mischief and stalking based on his actions toward a couple who were witnesses against him in a separate domestic violence case. The couple reported that Ziegler repeatedly drove around their block, made threatening statements, and later, bags of human feces began appearing in their yard. Security cameras captured vehicles similar to Ziegler's near the couple's property. Additionally, Ziegler was recorded vandalizing one of the victim's vehicles, causing significant damage.The District Court of McHenry County, Northeast Judicial District, presided over the case. During the trial, the court admitted testimony and exhibits related to the valuation of damages to the victim's vehicle over Ziegler's hearsay objections. The jury convicted Ziegler of both charges, and the court entered an amended judgment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. Ziegler argued that the district court erred in admitting hearsay evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to support his stalking conviction. The Supreme Court held that while the insurer's offer letters were inadmissible hearsay, the error was harmless because the victim's testimony regarding the vehicle's damage was properly admitted under the property owner rule. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the stalking conviction, noting Ziegler's repeated acts of harassment and intimidation directed at the couple.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the amended criminal judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "State v. Ziegler" on Justia Law

Artur Skobodzinski was driving a commercial vehicle when he was stopped by a North Dakota Highway Patrol trooper for a safety inspection. The trooper detected an odor of alcohol and observed that Skobodzinski had bloodshot eyes. Skobodzinski denied recent alcohol consumption and refused field sobriety tests. He also refused an on-site screening test and a chemical breath test, leading to his arrest for driving under the influence. Skobodzinski requested to speak with an attorney but was only allowed to do so over an hour later at the law enforcement center.The Department of Transportation held an administrative hearing and found that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test and had a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney. Consequently, his driving privileges were revoked for 180 days. The district court affirmed this decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the hearing officer did not err in finding that Skobodzinski refused the chemical test. However, the court found that the hearing officer erred in determining that Skobodzinski was given a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney. The court noted that the trooper could have allowed Skobodzinski to contact an attorney immediately after his request, rather than delaying it until they reached the law enforcement center. The court emphasized that the trooper's delay deprived Skobodzinski of a meaningful opportunity to consult with an attorney and potentially cure his refusal to take the chemical test.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and the hearing officer’s decision, thereby reinstating Skobodzinski’s driving privileges. View "Skobodzinski v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Brent Burton was charged with domestic violence, a class B misdemeanor, after a 911 call was made from his residence reporting an assault. The call was purportedly made by Burton's wife, who described being grabbed and slapped by Burton. The State filed a notice of intent to use the 911 call recording as evidence, supported by a certificate of authenticity from the records custodian of Central Dakota Communications. Burton pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.At the jury trial, the State was unable to locate or subpoena Burton's wife. Burton objected to the introduction of the 911 call recording, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. The district court admitted the recording, finding it addressed an ongoing emergency. The jury found Burton guilty, and the court sentenced him accordingly.Burton appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing the admission of the 911 call violated his Sixth Amendment rights and that the recording was improperly authenticated and contained inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and concluded the 911 call was nontestimonial, as its primary purpose was to address an ongoing emergency. The court also found sufficient circumstantial evidence to authenticate the call and determined it fell under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the admission of the 911 call did not violate Burton's constitutional rights and that the recording was properly authenticated and admissible under the hearsay exceptions. View "State v. Burton" on Justia Law

Scott Neil Krebs was charged with driving under the influence. After a jury found him guilty, Krebs renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The district court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District, granted Krebs' motion, setting aside the jury's guilty verdict and entering a judgment of acquittal.The State of North Dakota appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the court's order should be considered an "order quashing an information" under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1), which would allow the State to appeal. Alternatively, the State petitioned for a supervisory writ to vacate the judgment of acquittal and reinstate the jury's verdict.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the district court's decision was a true judgment of acquittal because it resolved a factual element of the offense, specifically the sufficiency of the evidence to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the State could not appeal the judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.Additionally, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, noting that such authority is discretionary and reserved for extraordinary cases where no adequate alternative exists. The court found that this case did not present extraordinary circumstances justifying supervisory intervention, as Krebs had timely renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the district court had the authority to grant it. The court emphasized that routinely granting writs in similar situations would undermine the strict limitations on appeals by the State. View "State v. Krebs" on Justia Law

Said Ali was charged with eight counts of possession of certain prohibited materials, specifically videos containing sexual conduct by a minor. Before the trial, Ali filed a motion in limine to exclude the videos and related witness testimony, arguing they were inadmissible under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. The district court denied this motion. Subsequently, Ali, his attorney, and the State signed a stipulation for conditional guilty pleas, intending to reserve Ali's right to appeal the court's ruling on the motion in limine. Ali pled guilty to all eight counts, and a criminal judgment was entered.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Theodore T. Sandberg, handled the initial proceedings. After the denial of the motion in limine, Ali entered his guilty pleas, which were intended to be conditional based on the stipulation signed by the parties. However, the criminal judgment did not specify that the pleas were conditional, and no transcript of the change of plea hearing was provided to confirm the conditional nature of the pleas.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that Rule 11(a)(2) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for conditional guilty pleas if specified in writing and accepted by the court. However, the judgment did not indicate that Ali's pleas were conditional, and there was no transcript to support this claim. Consequently, the court concluded that Ali failed to preserve the issue for appeal because the record did not reflect that his guilty pleas were conditional. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment, holding that Ali did not demonstrate that he entered conditional guilty pleas, thus the underlying issue was not preserved for review. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

In March 2023, the State charged Christopher Allman with multiple counts of domestic violence, felonious restraint, and terrorizing, alleging he assaulted his wife and their live-in girlfriend, locked them in a room, and refused to let them leave. The parties agreed Allman would undergo a mental health examination to determine his criminal responsibility. The examination was delayed due to issues with obtaining Allman’s records from the Veterans Administration. The evaluation, completed in August 2024, concluded Allman did not suffer from a mental condition precluding criminal liability. A jury trial in August 2024 resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts, and Allman was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment, with credit for time served on one count.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, oversaw the initial proceedings. Allman appealed, arguing errors related to the criminal responsibility evaluation, his fitness to stand trial, his right to a speedy trial, and the legality of his sentence. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the evaluation order, asserting it was against his will and violated his right against self-incrimination. He also argued the court should have ordered a fitness evaluation and that his right to a speedy trial was denied due to the delays in obtaining his mental health records.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in ordering the criminal responsibility evaluation because the parties had stipulated to it. The court found no grounds to doubt Allman’s fitness to stand trial and noted he did not request a fitness evaluation. The court also determined that Allman’s right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were not due to the State’s conduct, and Allman did not properly assert his right. Finally, the court affirmed the legality of Allman’s sentence, rejecting his argument about credit for time served. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

Cody Lee Littleghost was arrested in February 2023 for spitting on two officers and was charged with two counts of contact by bodily fluid and one count of attempted contact by bodily fluid. The attempted contact charge was dismissed. In June 2023, he was arrested again for shoplifting and spitting on an officer, leading to charges of failure to halt and contact by bodily fluids.The District Court of Cass County denied Littleghost's motions to suppress statements made to police, claiming he was not properly Mirandized. He pleaded guilty to all counts of contact by bodily fluids, reserving the right to appeal the suppression motions. The district court accepted his guilty pleas.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Littleghost argued that the district court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 by accepting his guilty plea for the February charges without an adequate factual basis. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not make an inquiry to ensure a factual basis for the plea, which is required under Rule 11(b)(3). The court concluded that this was an obvious error affecting Littleghost's substantial rights, as it called into question the validity of his plea.Regarding the June charges, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, finding no incriminating statements were made by Littleghost prior to being Mirandized. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment in the February case due to the lack of a factual basis for the guilty plea and affirmed the judgment in the June case, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Littleghost" on Justia Law

Cody Lee Littleghost was arrested in February 2023 for spitting on two officers and was charged with two counts of contact by bodily fluid and one count of attempted contact by bodily fluid. The attempted contact charge was dismissed. In June 2023, he was arrested again for shoplifting and spitting on an officer, leading to charges of failure to halt and contact by bodily fluids.The District Court of Cass County denied Littleghost's motions to suppress statements made to police, claiming he was not properly Mirandized. He pleaded guilty to all counts of contact by bodily fluids, reserving the right to appeal the suppression motions. The district court accepted his guilty pleas, and Littleghost appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Littleghost argued that the district court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 by accepting his guilty plea for the February charges without an adequate factual basis. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not make an inquiry to ensure a factual basis for the plea, which is required by Rule 11(b)(3). The court concluded that this was an obvious error affecting Littleghost's substantial rights, as it called into question the validity of his plea.Regarding the June charges, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding no incriminating statements were made by Littleghost before being Mirandized. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment in the February case due to the lack of a factual basis for the guilty plea and affirmed the judgment in the June case, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Littleghost" on Justia Law

Robert Williamson pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of luring a minor by electronic means. He was sentenced to incarceration with time suspended and did not appeal. In 2021, his probation was revoked, and he was resentenced. Williamson did not appeal the revocation. He then filed his first application for postconviction relief, which was denied. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the denial due to procedural errors, but the district court again denied the application after a hearing, and this denial was summarily affirmed. Williamson also filed motions asserting an illegal sentence, which led to a remand for resentencing.Williamson filed a second application for postconviction relief in 2024, alleging new evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel during the revocation and first postconviction proceedings. The State denied the allegations and pleaded misuse of process. The district court denied the application, finding the claims barred by res judicata and statutory prohibition against claims of ineffective postconviction counsel.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in applying res judicata because the State had waived this defense by not pleading it. However, the court affirmed the denial of Williamson’s application on the grounds of misuse of process, as the claims could have been raised earlier. The court also upheld the dismissal of Williamson’s claim of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, citing N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-09(2), which prohibits such claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Williamson’s second application for postconviction relief. View "Williamson v. State" on Justia Law

In March 2024, the State charged Leon Helland with four counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, a class C felony, under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b). The charges were based on Helland's 2021 conviction for menacing, during which he allegedly used or possessed a firearm. At the preliminary hearing, the arresting officer testified that Helland had firearms in his possession and that his prior menacing conviction involved a firearm. However, on cross-examination, the officer admitted she did not review the charging document or know if Helland had completed a deferred imposition of sentence.The District Court of Burleigh County dismissed the charges, finding the State did not show probable cause that Helland's menacing conviction involved the use of a firearm. The court took judicial notice of the plea agreement and amended information from the menacing case, which did not mention a firearm. The court concluded that the State needed to prove the conviction involved a firearm, not just provide supplemental testimony.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of the court records from the menacing case. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court misinterpreted N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b). The statute does not require the use or possession of a firearm to be an element of the predicate offense, only that the offense was committed while using or possessing a firearm. The Supreme Court concluded that the State had shown probable cause based on the officer's testimony.Despite this, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal because Helland's menacing conviction had been set aside and dismissed over a year before the firearm charges, meaning it could not serve as a predicate offense under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b). View "State v. Helland" on Justia Law