Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In 2009, Ciro Gomez was charged and found guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. In September 2024, Gomez filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming a significant change in law and newly discovered evidence proving his innocence. The State moved for summary disposition, and the district court dismissed Gomez’s petition but later granted reconsideration. In January 2025, the court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely without an evidentiary hearing. Gomez appealed.The district court ruled that there had been no substantive change in the law applicable to Gomez’s case. Gomez had relied on State v. Noble, but the court found that Noble did not represent a significant change in the law. The court also determined that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not new, as it was known to Gomez at the time of his trial or discovered more than two years before filing the petition.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Gomez’s petition was untimely and did not meet the exceptions to the two-year filing rule under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3). The court found that the evidence Gomez presented was not newly discovered and that any new information was known to him three years prior, exceeding the two-year limit for filing a postconviction relief application. Therefore, the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Gomez’s petition. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

Hope Marie Landsberger was found guilty of providing false information to law enforcement. She reported that Nathan Vetter, with whom she shares custody of their infant child, returned the child with a mouth injury and refused to explain how it occurred. However, a recording of the exchange showed that Landsberger did not speak to Vetter during the exchange, contradicting her claims. Additionally, Vetter had previously explained a different incident involving their child, to which Landsberger had acknowledged. The officer noted that Landsberger's report misled law enforcement and that she had a history of filing unfounded police reports against Vetter.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, held a jury trial where Landsberger was found guilty of willfully giving false information to a law enforcement officer in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-03(1). Landsberger appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the essential elements of the offense with sufficient specificity.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the jury instructions provided by the district court were correct and adequately informed the jury of the applicable law. The instructions specified the date, location, and all elements of the offense as required by the statute. The court found that Landsberger's requested modifications to the jury instructions would have added elements not required by the statute and increased the State's burden of proof. The court concluded that the instructions, taken as a whole, were not erroneous and did not affect a substantial right of the defendant. Therefore, the conviction was upheld. View "State v. Landsberger" on Justia Law

Garron Gonzalez pled guilty in 2004 to two counts of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to five years on each count, concurrently, with most of the sentence suspended for probation. His probation was revoked in 2005, and he was resentenced to five years on each count, concurrently, with part of the sentence suspended. In 2011, his probation was revoked again, and he was resentenced to 20 years on each count, consecutively. In 2013, a postconviction relief application led to a new revocation hearing, and in 2014, he was resentenced to 20 years on each count, concurrently. In 2023, another postconviction relief application resulted in a resentencing to five years on each count, consecutively. This was reversed on appeal, and in February 2024, he was resentenced to five years on each count, concurrently, with credit for time served.Gonzalez filed a postconviction relief application in May 2024, arguing that his 2005 sentence was illegal and that his credit for time served was incorrect. The State opposed his application. Gonzalez waived the postconviction hearing, and after submitting a closing brief, the district court denied his application, concluding he failed to show his sentence was illegal or that his credit for time served was incorrect.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and considered the issue of mootness. The court noted that Gonzalez had completed his sentence under the 2024 judgment, which rendered his arguments about the 2005 sentence and credit for time served moot. The court concluded that any collateral consequences Gonzalez claimed were speculative and would not be remedied by a favorable ruling. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Gonzalez v. State" on Justia Law