Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brian Schaf was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition and disorderly conduct. Schaf argued on appeal that the district court: (1) abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony; (2) erred in denying Schaf’s request for a lesser included offense of sexual assault; and (3) erred by incorrectly instructing the jury that consideration of Schaf’s intoxication was limited to one element of gross sexual imposition. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schaf" on Justia Law

Benjamin Hannesson appealed his convictions for gross sexual imposition, burglary, theft of property, terrorizing, felonious restraint, and two counts of physical obstruction of a government function. The charges were based on an incident that occurred near Walhalla, North Dakota. The State alleged Hannesson broke into a woman’s home in the middle of the night, restrained her, sexually assaulted her, stole money, and threatened to slit her throat if she called the police. Appealing to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Hannesson argued the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts and his right to due process was violated by prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Hannesson's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Hannesson" on Justia Law

Michael Neugebauer appealed a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction. In 1992, Neugebauer was charged with four counts of murder. Neugebauer pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, running concurrently. On October 5, 2020, Neugebauer moved for a reduction of his sentence under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1. After a hearing, the court denied his motion, concluding N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1 did not apply retroactively. Neugebauer argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1 should apply retroactively. He acknowledged the Court's holding in Garcia v. North Dakota, 925 N.W.2d 442, but argued its analysis “negates the very essence of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1” and “presumes an idle act by the Legislature.” He also argued the application of the ameliorative penal legislation exception to the general rule against retroactivity applied because this case was not lessening punishment; it was simply giving an avenue to specific individuals to move the court for a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Neugebauer" on Justia Law

Jonathan Linner was convicted by jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child. He appealed. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded no structural error occurred when the district court closed the courtroom for limited voir dire, Linner was not prejudiced or denied due process by the State’s voir dire, and the court did not err by ordering no contact with his minor children as a condition of the sentence. View "North Dakota v. Linner" on Justia Law

Brandon Tompkins was convicted for driving under the influence (“DUI”) and actual physical control (“APC”). Tompkins argued on appeal of the convictions that the district court erred by providing jury instructions merging the offenses of driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor and refusal to submit to a chemical test, which allowed the jury to convict Tompkins without unanimously agreeing Tompkins committed a singular criminal act. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the offenses of driving or being in actual physical control while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor were separate offenses from the offense of refusal to submit to a chemical test, and the jury instructions improperly merged the offenses together. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Tompkins" on Justia Law

Brandon Grant appealed a third amended judgment after a jury found him guilty of three counts of attempted murder and three counts of aggravated assault. Grant argued the State’s peremptory strike of a potential juror was improper and the district court erred by denying the Batson challenge. He further argued insufficient evidence supported the conviction on counts one, two, four, and five. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Grant" on Justia Law

Dacotah Ryder Hanson was found guilty by jury of leaving the scene of an accident involving death and manslaughter. In November 2018, a fatal motor vehicle rollover occurred near Tioga, North Dakota. Officers responded and observed a pickup truck lying on its passenger’s side in the middle of a field. Officers also observed a deceased male lying outside the passenger’s side door of the truck. The truck was registered to Hanson. At trial, law enforcement testified Hanson’s cell phone and pack of cigarettes were located in a field near the truck. Further evidence was presented, including handprints and other markings on the roof and driver’s side door, showing the driver had climbed out of the truck by the driver’s side. The markings led from the truck to the direction of Hanson’s residence. During closing argument, the State commented on Hanson’s lack of an explanation for his theory of the case. Part of Hanson’s defense theory suggested he was not the driver. The State asked how Hanson could have possibly extricated himself from underneath someone who is pinned under a truck. The defense objected on the grounds that the State was “coming dangerously close to saying the defendant needed to testify.” The objection was overruled. Hanson argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the State commenting on his right not to testify created reversible error. Hanson also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the criminal convictions. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hanson" on Justia Law

Dondarro Watts was convicted by jury of indecent exposure. Watts argued on appeal: (1) the district court abused its discretion regarding an evidentiary ruling; (2) the jury did not have sufficient evidence to convict him; (3) the court erred by providing misleading jury instructions; and (4) the court abused its discretion by requiring him to register as a sexual offender. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Watts" on Justia Law

Chad Isaak died after appealing a criminal judgment entered against him. His counsel argued the case should have either been dismissed because the judgment was not yet final, or the appeal should have been decided on the merits. The State argued the appeal was moot and the judgment should stand. No one sought substitution on Isaak’s behalf. The victims’ families did not assert a constitutional right to have the appeal proceed to disposition on the merits. The district court did not order restitution or fees. Absent any of these occurrences, and with no other apparent collateral consequences from a decision by the North Dakota Supreme Court, the Supreme Court concluded the appeal was moot and dismissed it. The judgment stood as issued by the district court. View "North Dakota v. Isaak" on Justia Law

Brian Sternberg appealed a district court order civilly committing him as a sexually dangerous individual. In 1992, Sternberg was convicted of corruption of a minor. He was incarcerated in late 1993 and remained on probation until January 1994. In 2000, the State charged Sternberg with committing three or more sexual acts with a child who was then his stepdaughter and under the age of fifteen. Sternberg was charged with one class A felony and five class C felonies. He also has convictions involving deceitful behavior, including financial fraud and bad checks. The court sentenced him to incarceration from October 2000 to February 2021. Peter Byrne, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist who conducted Sternberg’s evaluation, testified that there was no record of Sternberg’s having undergone treatment to deal with his “sexual interest or arousal to children” and reported that at the end of treatment it was recommended Sternberg continue sexual offender specific treatment. Sternberg has both pedophilic and antisocial personality disorders, which predisposed him to intense sexual fantasies and urges and to disregard “the rights and wishes of others.” The district court held a commitment hearing and granted the State’s petition for civil commitment. The court reported that its biggest concern with releasing Sternberg is that he has been living in a supervised environment while incarcerated and “[i]mmediate release into the community without support or supervision would ‘very likely result in a serious difficulty controlling his behaviors.’” On appeal, Sternberg argues the district court erred in finding the State had met its burden in proving that he is likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct and that he has serious difficulty in controlling behavior. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the trial court record did not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that Sternberg presently had a serious difficulty controlling behavior. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Interest of Sternberg" on Justia Law