Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A juvenile, K.I.B., was adjudicated delinquent in June 2024 by the Juvenile Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, for promoting a sexual performance by a minor and possession of prohibited materials, both felonies under North Dakota law, as well as giving false information to law enforcement. In January 2025, the court held a hearing to determine whether K.I.B. was required to register as a sexual offender. The court found that K.I.B. had no prior sexual offender offenses and did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct during the commission of the offenses, and therefore exempted K.I.B. from the registration requirement.The State appealed the exemption order to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in interpreting its discretion under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15. The State asserted its standing to appeal based on statutory language and public safety interests. The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo, focusing on whether the juvenile court had discretion to exempt K.I.B. from registration under the relevant statute.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(a) mandates registration for individuals adjudicated as felonious sexual offenders, including juveniles, unless the offense falls under a specific exception listed in subdivision (c), which did not apply to K.I.B. The court concluded that the juvenile court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by exempting K.I.B. from registration. The Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court’s order and remanded the case for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion, requiring K.I.B. to register as a sexual offender. View "Interest of K.I.B." on Justia Law

Taylor Kraft was charged in two separate criminal cases in Burleigh County, North Dakota, with multiple counts of theft and unauthorized use of personal identifying information. The cases were joined for trial, and in October 2024, Kraft, represented by counsel, pled guilty to all charges. In March 2025, Kraft filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and other grounds.The State responded to Kraft’s application by filing an answer and a motion for summary dismissal in April 2025. The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, granted the State’s motion on May 2, 2025, summarily dismissing Kraft’s application for postconviction relief. Kraft appealed, arguing that he was not given the required thirty days to respond to the State’s motion, as mandated when a motion for summary disposition is filed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and determined that, although the State labeled its motion as one for summary dismissal, it actually argued and relied upon the summary disposition (summary judgment) standard. The district court also applied the summary disposition standard in its ruling. Under North Dakota law, when a motion for summary disposition is filed, the applicant must be given thirty days to respond. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by not providing Kraft the required response time. The order summarily dismissing Kraft’s application for postconviction relief was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Kraft v. State" on Justia Law

Anthony Campbell was convicted of murder in 2016 following a jury trial. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Campbell filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the existence of newly discovered evidence that would warrant a new trial. His claims included that his trial counsel failed to investigate alternative suspects, call certain witnesses, obtain and preserve cell phone records, object to improper character evidence, challenge courtroom closures, address juror and prosecutorial misconduct, request independent forensic testing, and submit lesser included offenses for jury consideration. He also argued that his counsel had a conflict of interest and violated attorney-client privilege.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, initially dismissed Campbell’s postconviction application summarily. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed that dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the district court denied Campbell’s application, finding he failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel or the existence of newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial. The court found that Campbell’s counsel’s actions were within the bounds of reasonable professional judgment and that Campbell did not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for the alleged errors. The court also found no evidence of a conflict of interest or violation of attorney-client privilege, and determined that the alleged newly discovered evidence was known at trial and not material.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and legal conclusions de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order, holding that Campbell failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel or the existence of newly discovered evidence, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying postconviction relief. View "Campbell v. State" on Justia Law

Two individuals, both advanced practice registered nurses at a pain management clinic, were charged with multiple felonies, including reckless endangerment and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. The State alleged that they overprescribed controlled substances, creating a substantial risk of serious harm to patients. In each case, the State later reached a civil settlement with the defendant and moved to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice, citing the resolution of the issues through the civil agreement.The North Central Judicial District Court, presided over by Judge Gary Lee, denied the State’s motions to dismiss. The court interpreted North Dakota’s compromise statutes as prohibiting the State from dismissing felony charges based on a civil settlement, and found by clear and convincing evidence that dismissal would be against the public interest. In one case, after the denial, the State attempted to withdraw its motion to dismiss, but the district court did not issue an order recognizing the withdrawal, and the denial remained in effect.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case on a petition for a supervisory writ. The court held that the compromise statutes apply only to misdemeanors or infractions and do not bar the State from seeking dismissal of felony charges under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a). The court further held that a district court’s discretion to deny a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss under Rule 48(a) is limited; unless the prosecutor is acting in bad faith or for an improper motive, the court should not deny the motion based on its own assessment of the public interest. The Supreme Court concluded that Judge Lee misinterpreted the statutes and abused his discretion, granted the State’s petition, and directed the district court to reverse its orders denying dismissal. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with several offenses, including attempted gross sexual imposition, gross sexual imposition, two counts of child neglect, and indecent exposure, based on allegations that he forced two minor children to consume Nyquil and, in one case, marijuana/THC gummies. The State alleged these actions constituted child neglect under North Dakota law. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the defendant moved for acquittal at the close of the State’s case and again after the defense rested, but both motions were denied. The jury found the defendant guilty on the two counts of child neglect, and the district court entered judgments of acquittal on the remaining charges.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over the trial and sentencing. On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the child neglect convictions, contending that the statute criminalizes only omissions, not affirmative acts, and that his conduct, if criminal, would constitute child abuse rather than neglect. He also challenged the admission of jail call recordings, arguing improper authentication and hearsay.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the child neglect statute is not limited to omissions but can include affirmative acts that constitute a willful failure to provide proper parental care. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the district court did not err in denying the motions for acquittal. Regarding the jail call recordings, the court concluded that the State provided sufficient evidence to authenticate the recordings and that the defendant’s failure to object on hearsay grounds at trial precluded reversal on that basis. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Hendricks" on Justia Law

In 2019, Steven Rademacher was charged with murder, attempted murder, and terrorizing after driving his truck into a yard, killing one person and injuring others. He was found guilty by a jury, and the criminal judgments were affirmed on appeal. In 2023, Rademacher filed for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not securing a complete vehicle examination and not obtaining an independent criminal responsibility evaluation.The District Court of Williams County held an evidentiary hearing where Rademacher's trial counsel testified. The court found no evidence suggesting the vehicle's brakes were defective and noted that Rademacher had not raised this issue with his counsel. The court also found that Rademacher's trial counsel had reviewed a criminal responsibility evaluation and decided against seeking a second independent evaluation. The court denied Rademacher's petition for postconviction relief.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Rademacher failed to demonstrate his trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness regarding the vehicle examination. Additionally, the court found that Rademacher did not establish a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different if a second independent criminal responsibility evaluation had been obtained. The court concluded that Rademacher did not meet the burden of proof required to show ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Rademacher v. State" on Justia Law

In July 2021, the State charged Kamauri Kennedy with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Two weeks before the trial, Kennedy's counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to non-payment of legal fees, which the court denied. The trial was initially set for April 2024 but was continued to September 2024 due to late-discovered evidence. Kennedy's counsel filed another motion to withdraw, citing the winding down of his legal practice, which was also denied. Kennedy proceeded to trial in September 2024, where the court granted his motion for acquittal on the conspiracy charge, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life without parole.The District Court of Ward County denied Kennedy's requests for new counsel and his counsel's motions to withdraw. Kennedy did not object to the introduction of prior bad acts evidence during the trial, which he later argued should have been excluded. The court found that Kennedy invited the error by introducing his criminal history during voir dire and through jury instructions. The court also noted that Kennedy's failure to object precluded the State from arguing the evidence's admissibility and the court from conducting the necessary analysis.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that Kennedy invited the error regarding the prior bad acts evidence and failed to demonstrate that the district court committed obvious error by not excluding the evidence. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kennedy's request for new counsel and his counsel's motions to withdraw. The court emphasized the importance of timely objections and the potential strategic reasons for not objecting to evidence during the trial. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Orion Tyler Berkley was convicted of child abuse, a class B felony, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22(1) and was ordered to register as an offender against children. The information alleged that Berkley, the father of the victim, inflicted or allowed bodily injury on his approximately two-year-old child. At sentencing, Berkley argued that registration as an offender against children was not mandatory and that the court should not order it. However, the district court believed it was required by law and ordered Berkley to register for a minimum of 15 years.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over by Judge Benjamen J. Johnson, determined that registration was mandatory under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15. The court expressed difficulty in interpreting the statute but concluded that it required parents who commit offenses against children to register. Berkley appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation and that it abused its discretion by requiring him to register.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the statute ambiguous. The court examined the legislative history and the context of the statute, concluding that the district court misinterpreted the statute. The Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(d) allows the court to deviate from the registration requirement if the offender has not previously been convicted as a sexual offender or for a crime against a child and did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct, unless the offense is described in specific sections and the person is not the parent of the victim. The court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the registration requirement. View "State v. Berkley" on Justia Law

In February 2024, Nataneil Tekie Solomon was charged with gross sexual imposition and contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of a minor. At his arraignment in March 2024, Solomon pleaded not guilty and requested a speedy trial. The trial was scheduled for July 30, 2024, due to scheduling conflicts among the parties and the court. Solomon's counsel withdrew in May 2024, and new counsel was appointed. At the beginning of the trial, Solomon's counsel moved to dismiss the case for violation of his right to a speedy trial, which the district court denied, citing good cause for the delay.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, found good cause to extend the trial date beyond the 90-day statutory period due to scheduling conflicts and the agreement of Solomon's counsel to the July date. The court noted that neither party requested an earlier date when given the opportunity. The jury subsequently convicted Solomon on both counts.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the speedy trial determination de novo. The court considered the four Barker factors: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The court found that the delay was 41 days, caused by scheduling conflicts, and that Solomon had asserted his right to a speedy trial. However, Solomon did not demonstrate specific prejudice resulting from the delay.The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in finding good cause for the delay and affirmed the denial of Solomon's motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Solomon" on Justia Law

In 2021, a jury convicted an individual of gross sexual imposition involving his 13-year-old cousin, resulting in her pregnancy. DNA evidence established a high probability that he was the father. During the trial, the prosecutor asked an improper question regarding family support for the victim and defendant, which led to a defense objection and a curative instruction from the judge. The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied. On direct appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the improper question was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, as the jury was instructed to disregard it.Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief in the District Court of Cass County, later amending it to argue that three recent North Dakota Supreme Court decisions involving the same prosecutor constituted newly discovered evidence of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. The district court analyzed the claim under the standard for newly discovered evidence, finding that while the cited cases were decided after the defendant’s trial, they were not material to the issues at trial and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court also held that the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of prosecutorial misconduct had already been fully litigated and decided on direct appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. It held that the recent decisions did not constitute newly discovered evidence material to the trial’s issues and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court further concluded that the claim was barred by res judicata because it had been fully and finally determined on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying postconviction relief. View "Bazile v. State" on Justia Law