Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Joseph Miller was charged in two separate criminal cases with aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order (DVPO). In one case, the charge for violating a DVPO was amended from a felony to a misdemeanor after a prior violation was dismissed. Miller entered an Alford plea to aggravated assault and pled guilty to the amended misdemeanor DVPO violation and a felony DVPO violation in the second case. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration and probation, with some time suspended and conditions including electronic monitoring and participation in sobriety and anger management programs.The District Court of Nelson County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over Miller’s cases. After Miller failed to comply with probation conditions—including repeated alcohol violations and failure to complete required programs—the State petitioned to revoke his probation. At the revocation hearing, Miller admitted to the remaining alleged violations. The district court found Miller violated probation, revoked it, and resentenced him. However, the court did not orally pronounce a new sentence for the misdemeanor DVPO violation in one case, and the amended judgment classified it as a felony, contrary to the earlier amendment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed Miller’s appeal, applying a two-step analysis for probation revocation: reviewing factual findings for clear error and the revocation decision for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court’s findings of probation violations were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous, and that revocation and incarceration were not an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the revocation and sentence in the felony DVPO case, affirmed the findings and sentence for aggravated assault, but reversed and remanded for proper sentencing on the misdemeanor DVPO violation, as the sentence in the amended judgment was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

A defendant was convicted by a jury in 2018 on two felony counts of gross sexual imposition involving the seven-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. The prosecution’s case included the child’s testimony, a video of her forensic interview, statements from her mother and babysitter, and evidence of the defendant’s conduct and statements before and after the alleged incident. The State also introduced evidence of the defendant’s internet searches for incest-related pornography, which was not referenced in closing arguments and comprised a small portion of the trial record.On direct appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting that the defendant’s counsel had failed to object to the admission of the internet search evidence under North Dakota Rule of Evidence 404(b), and thus forfeited the issue. The defendant then sought postconviction relief in the District Court of Burleigh County, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the Rule 404(b) evidence and for not arguing obvious error on appeal. The district court granted relief, finding counsel’s performance deficient under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington and concluding, with minimal explanation, that the defendant was prejudiced under the second prong.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in finding counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. However, the Supreme Court found the district court’s analysis of prejudice insufficient, as it did not assess the impact of counsel’s errors in the context of the remaining evidence and the overall trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of deficient performance, reversed the finding of prejudice, and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to supplement the record if possible and conduct the required prejudice analysis under Strickland. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with multiple felonies and a misdemeanor after breaking into an airport hangar, causing over $1 million in property damage to the hangar, an airplane, and vehicles, and stealing an ATV. He had a significant criminal history, including prior convictions for theft, burglary, and other offenses. He entered an open guilty plea to all charges. The district court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 51 years in prison, 3 years of probation, and ordered restitution of $306,400, reflecting damages not covered by insurance.After sentencing, the defendant filed a motion under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, arguing his sentence was illegal and seeking leniency. The District Court of Pierce County partially granted the motion, finding the sentence was not illegal but reducing the total imprisonment to 30 years as an act of leniency. The defendant appealed from the order denying further relief and from the amended judgment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as the sentence was within statutory limits and justified by the gravity of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. The court also found no violation of statutory law regarding mandatory minimum sentences, as none of the offenses required such minimums and the consecutive sentences were authorized by law. The court declined to address additional arguments regarding judicial conduct and equal protection, finding they were not adequately raised or supported. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s order and the amended judgment. View "State v. Wallette" on Justia Law

The defendant was originally convicted after pleading guilty to several offenses, including aggravated assault, terrorizing, felonious restraint, child neglect, and domestic violence. He was sentenced to jail time and placed on probation for two years, with conditions that included abstaining from drugs and alcohol and not violating any laws. The State later petitioned to revoke his probation, alleging that he had used controlled substances, been charged with new crimes, and pled guilty to additional offenses.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, held a probation revocation hearing. During the hearing, the defendant indicated he had applied for counsel but had not received a response. The court offered to continue the hearing and provide another application for counsel, especially after the State indicated it would recommend a significant sentence. The defendant, however, repeatedly stated he wished to proceed without counsel, and the court confirmed multiple times that he understood his right to counsel and was waiving it voluntarily. The State withdrew one allegation, and the defendant admitted to the remaining two. The court found he violated probation and resentenced him to five years, with certain sentences to run concurrently and others consecutively.On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant argued that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at the revocation hearing. The Supreme Court held that the right to counsel at a probation revocation hearing in North Dakota arises from a rule of criminal procedure, not the Constitution, and that the district court’s finding of a knowing and intelligent waiver was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s amended criminal judgment revoking probation and resentencing the defendant. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of September 17, 2024, police responded to a report that a man had drawn a knife and approached a woman in her vehicle at a Fargo gas station. Surveillance video captured the incident, and Shawn King was apprehended near the scene. He was charged with terrorizing, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of drug paraphernalia, though the drug paraphernalia charge was dismissed before trial. At trial, the victim testified that King approached her on a bicycle, threw it down, brandished a knife, and advanced toward her in an angry manner, causing her to fear for her safety. The jury viewed the surveillance footage and heard testimony from three officers. Ultimately, the jury found King guilty of terrorizing but acquitted him of carrying a concealed weapon.Following the jury’s verdict, the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, entered judgment and sentenced King to five years, with four years to be served and one year suspended during two years of supervised probation. King appealed, arguing that the terrorizing statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad as applied to his conduct, and that the combination of the terrorizing and concealed weapon statutes violated his right to lawfully carry a weapon. He did not raise these constitutional arguments in the district court.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed King’s claims for obvious error, as they were not preserved below. The court held that King failed to demonstrate any clear or obvious deviation from current law regarding the constitutionality of the statutes as applied to him. The court found that the terrorizing statute incorporates both subjective and objective standards, and that King’s overbreadth and Second Amendment arguments did not establish plain error. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with murder and contributing to the delinquency of a minor after allegedly killing his wife in their home while their two young children were present. Before trial, the prosecution requested that the children be allowed to testify remotely, arguing that testifying in the defendant’s presence would cause them significant emotional distress and impair their ability to communicate. The district court held hearings, received testimony from mental health professionals who had treated the children, and ultimately granted the State’s motion, finding that remote testimony was necessary to prevent serious emotional trauma to the children.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, presided over the case. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of contributing to the deprivation of a minor, and the murder charge proceeded to trial. The court instructed the jury that the children’s remote testimony was permissible by law and should not influence their deliberations. The children testified via two-way electronic communication, and the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The court entered a judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole. The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court failed to make the findings required by statute for remote testimony and that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court made the necessary findings under North Dakota Century Code § 31-04-04.2(1), specifically that testifying in the defendant’s presence would likely cause the children serious emotional distress or trauma impacting their ability to communicate. The Supreme Court found these findings were supported by the evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The court concluded that the defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated and affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Moen" on Justia Law

Jonathan Guthmiller was convicted of failing to register as a sexual offender, a requirement stemming from his 2017 guilty plea to luring a minor by computer. Under North Dakota law, he was obligated to register twice yearly and to update his registration within three days of any change in his phone number. In September 2024, Guthmiller was charged for failing to register a valid phone number and for not completing his August 2024 registration.The case was tried in the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District. Before trial, the State proposed jury instructions that did not include the location of the offense as an essential element, citing State v. Samaniego. Guthmiller did not submit alternative instructions or object to the State’s proposal. At a status conference, the court explained the instructions to Guthmiller, who confirmed his understanding and explicitly stated he had no objection. Guthmiller represented himself at trial and did not move for acquittal. The jury found him guilty.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Guthmiller argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically contending the State failed to prove the conduct occurred in Grand Forks County or North Dakota. He also challenged the jury instructions for omitting the location element. The Supreme Court held that Guthmiller had waived any objection to the jury instructions by affirmatively agreeing to them at trial. As a result, the instructions became the law of the case, and the State was not required to prove the location of the offense. The Court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict and affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

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