Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

A driver was involved in a traffic collision in Grand Forks County, North Dakota, which resulted in injuries to two people in another vehicle, including a minor who later died. Law enforcement, led by the North Dakota Highway Patrol, responded to the scene and investigated the driver for driving under the influence. During the investigation, a chemical breath test was administered to the driver to determine his blood alcohol content. The State later charged the driver with criminal vehicular injury and criminal vehicular homicide, both alleging he was driving under the influence.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, held an evidentiary hearing on the driver's motion to suppress the results of the chemical breath test. The driver argued that his consent to the test was not voluntary and that the evidence was obtained in violation of statute and his due process rights. The court granted the motion, suppressing the breath test evidence, finding that the State failed to show that the driver voluntarily consented to the chemical test after being read the implied consent advisory.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the District Court’s decision and applied a de novo standard to questions of law, while deferring to the lower court’s factual findings unless they were contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the District Court misapplied the law by treating the relevant statutes—N.D.C.C. §§ 39-20-01 and 39-20-01.1—as separate and distinct rather than as statutes that operate in conjunction. The Supreme Court clarified that both statutes may apply simultaneously and that providing an accurate implied consent advisory does not constitute per se coercion. The Court reversed the suppression order and remanded the case for further findings on whether the driver’s consent was voluntary, using the correct legal standards. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

Lawrence Harris sought postconviction relief following his criminal conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the State violated its obligations under Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose favorable evidence—specifically, the probation conditions of a witness. Harris claimed that these alleged deficiencies undermined the fairness of his trial and warranted relief from his conviction.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, reviewed Harris’s claims. Applying the standard from Strickland v. Washington, the district court found that Harris failed to demonstrate that any alleged errors by his trial counsel prejudiced the outcome of his case; in other words, he did not show a reasonable probability of a different result but for counsel’s unprofessional errors. Regarding the Brady claim, the court determined that Harris did not provide evidence that the State suppressed the witness’s probation conditions, and thus denied relief on that basis as well.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota considered Harris’s arguments. The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. It held that the lower court’s findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were not clearly erroneous and were supported by evidence. Regarding the Brady claim, the Supreme Court concluded that Harris waived the issue by failing to meet the minimum briefing requirements under the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, as his appellate brief did not adequately articulate or support the claim. As a result, the Supreme Court declined to address the Brady claim on its merits and affirmed the district court’s order denying Harris’s application for postconviction relief. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

Joshua Martinez was charged in two separate cases with serious offenses, including attempted murder, reckless endangerment, terrorizing, fleeing from law enforcement, violation of a domestic violence protection order, unlawful firearm possession, and other related crimes. The cases were consolidated and proceeded to a seven-day jury trial, where twelve jurors and two alternates were sworn in. After the first day of trial, Juror 9 was observed interacting with Jacob Martinez, a relative of the defendant. Upon questioning, Juror 9 disclosed he only learned of the familial relationship after speaking with Jacob Martinez. Despite Juror 9’s assurance of impartiality, the district court dismissed him, citing concerns about the interaction, and replaced him with an alternate juror.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over the consolidated trial. Following the jury’s verdict, Martinez was convicted on all counts except one of reckless endangerment. Martinez objected to the removal of Juror 9, arguing that the substitution violated his constitutional rights and exceeded the court’s authority under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(c)(1).On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the district court’s decision to replace Juror 9 constituted an abuse of discretion or violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that substituting a properly qualified alternate juror did not implicate double jeopardy, as it did not terminate the original jeopardy. The court further held that the district court’s expressed concerns regarding Juror 9’s impartiality constituted a sufficient basis for dismissal, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in replacing Juror 9 with an alternate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgments against Martinez. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with preventing arrest and domestic violence following an incident at his mother’s residence in Minot, North Dakota. The alleged facts included a confrontation between the defendant and his sister, during which she claimed the defendant pushed her, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. Police responded to the scene, and when attempting to arrest the defendant, he physically resisted, repeatedly stating he was “not going to jail.” Officers used force to restrain and handcuff him, and body camera footage was entered into evidence.The case was heard in the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District. At trial, testimony was provided by the victim, two police officers, and the defendant. The court also reviewed photographic and video evidence. The defendant made motions for acquittal at the close of the State’s case and at the end of all evidence, both of which were denied. The District Court found the defendant guilty of both charges, sentencing him to 360 days’ imprisonment with most suspended for supervised probation on the preventing arrest conviction, and a concurrent 30-day sentence on the domestic violence conviction.On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, claiming he was not informed of his arrest before being restrained and that he acted in self-defense with no intent to cause injury. The Supreme Court held that sufficient evidence supported both convictions. The Court found that the officers were justified in not informing the defendant of his arrest prior to his resistance, and that the defendant’s actions toward his sister constituted willful, or at least reckless, conduct resulting in bodily injury. The criminal judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Gores" on Justia Law

On November 4, 2024, an individual went to his stepchild’s elementary school to speak with the principal about the child’s recent suspension from bus privileges. During and after this meeting, his behavior—raising his voice, pushing a garbage can into a door, forcefully exiting the building, yelling obscenities, and making obscene gestures in the presence of children—alarmed the principal, a school counselor, and a paraprofessional. Each testified that his actions caused them alarm. He was later charged with disorderly conduct under North Dakota law.The case proceeded to a bench trial in the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District. The defendant waived his right to a jury trial. The district court found, based on testimony and the totality of the conduct, that the defendant’s actions—including using obscene language, physical agitation, and reckless driving in the school parking lot—constituted tumultuous behavior that reasonably alarmed those present. The court found the statutory elements of disorderly conduct were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a criminal judgment of conviction. The defendant appealed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the conviction. The defendant argued that his conduct was constitutionally protected as an exercise of parental rights and that the evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court held that because the defendant did not raise constitutional claims at trial or argue obvious error on appeal, those arguments would not be addressed. Applying the standard of viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court found that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant acted with at least reckless disregard as to whether his behavior would alarm others and that his conduct was tumultuous. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the conviction for disorderly conduct. View "State v. Vetter" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury of two counts of gross sexual imposition, one a class AA felony and one a class A felony. During jury deliberations, the jury requested to review a recorded interview that was part of the evidence. Because there was no device available for the jury to listen to the recording in the jury room, the district court decided to play the recording in the courtroom. The court then closed the courtroom to the public during this process, reasoning that the jury’s review of evidence constituted deliberations, which required exclusion of the public.The District Court of Dunn County, Southwest Judicial District, presided over the trial and made the decision to close the courtroom. The defendant did not object to the closure at trial but did ask the court to consider whether reviewing evidence was truly deliberation. The court performed a Waller v. Georgia analysis and found that an overriding interest justified closure, and both parties agreed the findings were adequate for the record. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a 20-year term, with 10 years suspended, and the sentences to run concurrently.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether the closure of the courtroom during the jury’s review of evidence violated the defendant’s right to a public trial. The court held that the district court erred by treating the jury’s review of evidence as deliberations requiring closure. The Supreme Court found this was a plain and obvious error that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, constituting a structural error. The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the closure of the courtroom under these circumstances violated the defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial. View "State v. Barrett" on Justia Law

A defendant was arrested following a report of sexual misconduct and charged with four counts of gross sexual imposition involving a minor. The victim testified that the defendant’s sexual contact began when she was six years old and continued regularly from 2013 to 2016. The victim’s mother testified that the defendant admitted to an instance of sexual contact in 2013, and the victim’s brother corroborated that the victim disclosed the abuse to him, which he later reported to a school counselor. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the victim and her family members testified about the frequency and nature of the abuse.The District Court of Burke County, North Central Judicial District, presided over the trial. During jury deliberations, the jury requested to review an audio recording, which was replayed in open court due to the lack of a clean computer for use in the jury room. After the recording was played, the defendant’s attorney moved for a mistrial, alleging that the victim’s mother made audible noises in the courtroom that could have influenced the jury. The court denied the motion, noting that neither the judge, the State, nor defense counsel (apart from the defendant’s own observation) noticed any such noises. The jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts, and each juror affirmed that the presence of others in the courtroom did not affect their verdicts.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. The court held that the victim’s testimony, even without specific instances for each year, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court also found no actual prejudice from the alleged courtroom noises and concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Watterud" on Justia Law

Carrie Cotton was charged in four separate cases with multiple class A misdemeanor offenses, including stalking, harassment, and violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. The charges stemmed from her alleged harassment of her ex-boyfriend, T.B., and his acquaintances, H.C., B.C., and T.C., including sending numerous messages from various phone numbers and fake social media accounts. Despite a restraining order, Cotton continued to contact the victims with explicit and vulgar messages. She entered Alford pleas of guilty to all charges.The District Court of Foster County, Southeast Judicial District, presided by Judge James D. Hovey, sentenced Cotton to consecutive prison terms of 360 days on four separate counts, each relating to different victims and incidents. The court also imposed suspended terms of imprisonment on the remaining counts and ordered two years of probation. Cotton appealed, arguing that the consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses violated North Dakota’s statutory prohibition against such sentencing, claiming her actions constituted a single course of conduct.The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that an exception to the general rule against consecutive sentences for misdemeanors applied because each offense was committed as part of a different course of conduct, involving distinct acts against different victims on different dates. The court found that similarity in method and motive did not render the offenses part of the same course of conduct. The court also rejected Cotton’s argument that the district court failed to make necessary factual findings, concluding that the facts were undisputed and the legal standard was met. The Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgments, holding that the consecutive sentences were lawful under the statutory exception. View "State v. Cotton" on Justia Law