Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Kareem Lee Byrd, Jr. was charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He entered an Alford plea to the conspiracy charge, and the murder charge was dismissed. Byrd was sentenced to twenty-five years, with five years suspended. He later filed for postconviction relief, arguing that he was convicted of a non-cognizable offense, his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.The District Court of Cass County denied Byrd’s application for postconviction relief. The court found that Byrd failed to show his Alford plea was not knowing or voluntary, failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and failed to demonstrate that withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Byrd appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Byrd was convicted of a cognizable offense because he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit intentional murder, which is a cognizable offense. The court found that a sufficient factual basis supported Byrd’s plea and that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court also concluded that Byrd failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he did not demonstrate that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. View "Byrd v. State" on Justia Law

Joshua Gomez was charged with multiple offenses in 2006, including criminal trespass, stalking, violation of a disorderly conduct restraining order, and gross sexual imposition (GSI). He pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, with a significant portion of the GSI sentence suspended and a probation period imposed. In 2018, after violating probation, his probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to 50 years with a substantial portion suspended, and credited for time served.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, handled the initial sentencing and the probation revocation. Gomez appealed the revocation and resentencing, which was summarily affirmed. In 2024, Gomez moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his resentencing exceeded the original suspended sentence and that he should receive credit for time spent in civil commitment at the State Hospital. The district court partially granted his motion, correcting the sentence but denying credit for the civil commitment time.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to exclude the time Gomez spent at the State Hospital from his sentence credit, as it was not directly related to the criminal charge. However, the court remanded the case for the district court to consider Gomez's argument regarding good time credit, which was not adequately addressed in the lower court's judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judgment must explicitly state any good time credit accrued. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

In October 2022, officers responded to a shooting in Bismarck, North Dakota, where Christopher Sebastian was found dead in a vehicle with multiple gunshot wounds. Benjamin Williams was charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Evidence collected included a black sweatshirt, face mask, glove, jeans, a .40 caliber pistol, cartridges, and ammunition magazines. Williams's trial began on April 1, 2024, and after six days, the jury found him guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life without parole for murder and five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently. Williams appealed the decision.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, denied Williams's motion to exclude new witness testimony not disclosed by the State before the trial. Williams argued that the State's failure to provide new information about the witness's testimony constituted a Brady violation. The court found that Williams could have obtained the information with reasonable diligence and thus did not establish a Brady violation. Additionally, Williams's motion for sanctions regarding the State's failure to disclose a forensic examiner's employment records was denied, as the issue was not preserved for review.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that there was no Brady violation regarding the new witness testimony, as Williams had the opportunity to obtain the information with reasonable diligence. The court also declined to address the alleged Brady violation related to the forensic examiner's employment records, as it was not preserved for review. Lastly, the court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the State's closing arguments and concluded that Williams was not denied due process. The district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law