Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A woman was discovered inside a Minot, North Dakota residence by one of its occupants, who awoke to find her, a stranger, in his bedroom. Upon confronting her, he noticed her wearing mismatched Adidas shoes, and she emptied her pockets to reveal prescription medications and car keys belonging to the residents. After the woman fled, the residents found their home in disarray and discovered $1,600 in rent money and several pieces of gold jewelry missing from a secret compartment in a drawer. Shortly after, police located a woman matching the description, wearing the same shoes, who admitted to taking a gold ring and the shoes. She was identified as Winona Keplin.Keplin was charged with burglary and theft of property in the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District. Pursuant to a plea agreement, she pled guilty to burglary and the theft charge was dismissed. The State sought restitution for the missing cash and jewelry, and, after a hearing, the district court found the State’s witnesses credible and ordered Keplin to pay $5,882 in restitution, reflecting the value of the missing items.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding restitution for items not found on Keplin at her arrest. The Supreme Court applied a standard similar to abuse of discretion, affirming that findings of fact are not set aside unless clearly erroneous. The court distinguished this case from prior decisions where the causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the loss was lacking. Here, the court found sufficient evidence of a direct connection between Keplin’s burglary and the victims’ losses. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the amended criminal judgment ordering restitution. View "State v. Keplin" on Justia Law

After police received information that Jeffrey Simpson had made threats to “shoot it out with police” and possessed a handgun, a SWAT team was deployed to arrest him at his workplace. When officers confronted Simpson, he failed to comply with commands, was struck by a less-lethal projectile, and responded by firing two or three rounds at the officers before his firearm jammed. Simpson attempted to clear the malfunction, reloaded his weapon, fired an additional round into the ground, and then surrendered. He was charged with multiple offenses related to both the shooting incident and prior events.Simpson pleaded guilty to several charges, including burglary, domestic violence, and drug possession, in Grand Forks County District Court. He proceeded to a jury trial on four counts of attempted murder and three counts of reckless endangerment. The jury found Simpson guilty on all remaining charges. After sentencing, a criminal judgment was entered against him.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Simpson contended that the jury’s verdicts on the attempted murder counts were legally inconsistent and that there was insufficient evidence to support convictions on all four counts, given the limited number of shots fired. The Supreme Court held that the jury instructions correctly stated the law and that the definition of “substantial step” for attempted murder did not require separate shots for each named officer. The Court found no legal inconsistency in the verdicts and concluded that sufficient evidence supported the convictions under the deferential standard of review. The Court affirmed the criminal judgment but ordered the district court clerk to correct a clerical error regarding which counts Simpson pleaded guilty to and which were decided by jury verdict. View "State v. Simpson" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with domestic violence, a class B misdemeanor, after an incident on September 18, 2024. During pretrial proceedings, she requested an evaluation of her fitness to proceed, which led to delays as she alternately authorized and withdrew consent for the release of her medical records. The situation was further complicated by her involvement in other pending criminal cases. After missing a hearing and further delays in obtaining the evaluation, the court issued a bench warrant to secure her presence for the evaluation, which ultimately found her fit to proceed. Following additional continuances and attorney substitutions, a jury found her guilty, and she was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with credit for time served.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, managed the proceedings. At no point did the court find that the defendant was unfit to proceed; instead, the proceedings were delayed due to the complications surrounding the fitness evaluation and her cooperation. The defendant did not raise the issue of delay or seek dismissal under North Dakota statutes or procedural rules until her appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case on appeal. The defendant argued that the case should have been dismissed because the period for suspending proceedings under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-04-08(2) or for undue delay under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48 had been exceeded. The Supreme Court held that the statutory dismissal deadline was never triggered because the district court had not found the defendant lacked fitness to proceed. The Court also found that Rule 48 did not provide a clear legal basis for dismissal under the circumstances and that there was no showing of prejudice. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "State v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The case involves Richard Romanyshyn, who was subject to a disorderly conduct restraining order (DCRO) issued in Stark County, North Dakota, which included two minor children as protected parties. Romanyshyn was personally served with the DCRO and did not appeal it. Later, he allegedly violated the order by sending text messages to one or more protected parties. Subsequently, he was charged with violating the DCRO, a class A misdemeanor. Separately, a DCRO was issued against him in Hettinger County involving the same parties, but the North Dakota Supreme Court later reversed that order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing in Davis v. Romanyshyn, 2025 ND 18.After the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Hettinger County DCRO, Romanyshyn moved to dismiss the Stark County criminal charge, arguing that the DCRO in his case was invalid under the Davis precedent. The State responded that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hettinger County matter did not affect the Stark County DCRO. The District Court of Stark County denied Romanyshyn’s motion to dismiss, finding that his challenge was a legal, not factual, one, and that no evidentiary hearing or factual findings were necessary.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court held that because Romanyshyn’s argument was purely legal and not dependent on disputed facts, the district court was not required to make factual findings. Further, the Supreme Court determined that the district court did not improperly take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. The Court declined to address the merits of the collateral attack argument because Romanyshyn did not brief the issue. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Romanyshyn" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with robbery and reckless endangerment in December 2024 while on parole for a prior conviction. He was arrested on December 18, 2024, did not post bond, and his parole was revoked during his pretrial custody. In June 2025, the robbery charge was amended to aggravated assault, and the defendant pled guilty to both aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. The district court sentenced him to five years for aggravated assault and two years for reckless endangerment, to run consecutively and consecutive to another sentence not at issue. The court did not give the defendant credit for time served in custody between his arrest and sentencing.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over sentencing. The defendant argued at sentencing that he should receive credit for time served from his arrest, claiming his custody was due to the new charges. The State contended the custody resulted from his parole revocation on a previous conviction. The defendant’s attorney acknowledged the parole was revoked five days after arrest but presented no evidence regarding the timing or application of credit. The district court found the time in custody was due to the parole violation, not the new charges, and denied credit for time served. The defendant appealed the sentence, claiming entitlement to credit and arguing the State bore the burden to prove facts supporting the denial.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that under North Dakota law, the burden is on the defendant to show entitlement to credit for time served, and a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served on an unrelated prior conviction. The court found no abuse of discretion or illegality in the sentence, as it was within statutory limits and based on proper factors. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Barse" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer in Ramsey County, North Dakota, stopped a driver after observing her vehicle cross the center line. The driver, accompanied by her two minor children, exhibited physical signs of nervousness and possible impairment. The officer determined her license was suspended and observed further signs suggesting possible drug use, which included shaking, pacing, and bloodshot, constricted eyes. After the driver admitted to having smoked marijuana earlier in the day, the officer detained her, contacted the children’s parents to pick them up, and requested the assistance of a K-9 unit. Field sobriety tests were conducted, which did not indicate alcohol impairment. When the K-9 arrived, the dog alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search of the vehicle that uncovered drug paraphernalia and marijuana.The District Court of Ramsey County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress her statements and the evidence discovered during the stop, finding that the officer did not subject her to unlawful custodial interrogation and that the search of her vehicle was supported by probable cause under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the suppression motion. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was not subjected to unlawful custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings at the time she admitted to drug use, the officer did not impermissibly prolong the stop to facilitate the K-9 arrival, and probable cause supported the subsequent vehicle search. The Court further upheld the search of her person at the detention facility as incident to a lawful arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

Police responded to a house fire in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where an officer observed Antonio Medina behaving evasively and distancing himself from law enforcement. Medina left the scene in his red Ford Explorer and later returned on foot. Officers located Medina’s unattended, unlocked vehicle in a commercial parking lot nearby. Through the window, they observed keys, a cut straw with white residue, and a box for a digital scale. Officers conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle, seizing the straw, an electronic scale with residue, and small baggies. The residue tested positive for cocaine.Medina was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia, both class A misdemeanors. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unconstitutional. The Northeast Central Judicial District Court denied the motion, ruling the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement applied because there was probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime. Medina entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court previously remanded the case for correction of the criminal judgment to specify that the plea was conditional, as required by state procedural rules. After the district court entered an amended judgment, Medina appealed again.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed whether the warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception. The court held the exception applied because the vehicle, though parked and unoccupied, was readily mobile and located in a public commercial lot. The court found probable cause based on Medina’s suspicious behavior and the drug-related items visible inside the vehicle. The court concluded that the search was valid under the automobile exception and affirmed the amended judgment. View "State v. Medina" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder, tampering with evidence, unlawful possession of a firearm, and giving false information to law enforcement following the shooting death of Mark Ramon McMillan in the basement of a barbershop in Minot, North Dakota. Both the victim and defendant had been staying in the basement, and the victim’s body was later found wrapped and bound in the boiler room. The defendant admitted to shooting McMillan, claiming self-defense. The prosecution originally charged the defendant with theft of property—firearm, but later moved to amend this count to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon after considering a plea agreement.The District Court of Ward County granted the prosecution’s unopposed motion to amend the criminal information. After the plea agreement was rejected, the amended information remained, and the defendant entered a not guilty plea. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant’s prior felony conviction and recent probation termination to prove the elements of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts.On appeal, the defendant argued that the district court violated North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(e) by allowing the amendment to the criminal information and committed obvious error by admitting evidence of his prior conviction and probation status, allegedly in violation of Rule 403 and Old Chief v. United States. The Supreme Court of North Dakota declined to review the Rule 7(e) claim because the issue was not preserved or briefed under the obvious error standard. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the prior conviction, as it was necessary to prove an element of the offense and no stipulation was made. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of terrorizing with a dangerous weapon or firearm and one count of preventing arrest after allegedly threatening to shoot or kill people at a restaurant in Minot, North Dakota. The prosecution claimed that the defendant made verbal threats, stated he had a gun in his backpack, gestured toward the backpack, and was later found to possess a firearm in the backpack after his arrest. The restaurant manager and a patron testified that, while they did not see the firearm, the defendant claimed to have it and threatened to use it.The District Court of Ward County dismissed seven of the eight terrorizing counts before trial. The defendant proceeded to a bench trial on one count of terrorizing and one count of preventing arrest. He stipulated to the essential elements of the terrorizing offense, disputing only whether the mandatory minimum sentence for use of a firearm applied. The trial judge found the defendant guilty on both counts and made a special finding that he possessed a firearm during the offense. The court concluded that the armed offender statute applied, ruling that possession and threat to injure using a firearm sufficed, without requiring the gun to be brandished or displayed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court properly interpreted and applied N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-02.1, which mandates a minimum sentence for certain offenses involving firearms. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not require a firearm to be brandished or displayed; it is sufficient if the offender threatens to injure another through the use or means of a firearm while possessing it. The court found the district court’s interpretation reasonable and supported by the evidence and affirmed the judgment, including the mandatory minimum sentence. View "State v. Reese" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with terrorizing—domestic violence, a class C felony, after an incident involving his ex-wife, who is also the mother of his minor child. The district court imposed a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the victim, initially for thirty days. After the defendant pled guilty, the court sentenced him to two years, including three days to serve (with credit for time served) and two years of supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the court extended the no-contact order for two years, prohibiting all direct or indirect contact with the victim, including communication relevant to their minor child.After sentencing, the defendant requested an exception to allow necessary communications with the victim regarding court-ordered parenting time with their child. The district court declined, stating the defendant was not prohibited from having contact with his child but failed to provide any method for arranging parenting time, given the victim’s residential responsibility and the communication restrictions. The defendant appealed the judgment and the order extending the no-contact provision.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that, although the district court acted within statutory limits and did not rely on any impermissible factor (so the sentence was not illegal), it abused its discretion by failing to provide a means for the defendant to arrange contact with his child or to explain why no such method was allowed. The court determined that, under these circumstances, the blanket prohibition on contact with the victim—including for purposes of exercising parental rights—was arbitrary and not the result of a reasoned decision. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the criminal judgment and the order extending the order prohibiting contact and remanded for resentencing, instructing the district court to consider alternatives that would permit the defendant to exercise his parental rights. View "State v. Maher" on Justia Law