Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Garett Casatelli appealed a corrected criminal judgment after he entered a conditional guilty plea to actual physical control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or greater. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Casatelli was not seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, sec. 8, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Casatelli" on Justia Law

Trevor Bolme appealed after entering a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Bolme argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop based on a cracked windshield, and lacked probable cause to search his vehicle based on the odor of marijuana. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop and probable cause to conduct the search. Therefore, the Court affirmed the criminal judgment of the district court. View "North Dakota v. Bolme" on Justia Law

Rolando Rodriguez was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition, burglary, terrorizing, and domestic violence assault. On appeal, Rodriguez argued: (1) he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel; (2) insufficient evidence existed to support his guilty verdicts; and (3) the district court erred when it failed to use a special verdict for the jury to determine whether Rodriguez used a dangerous weapon in commission of the terrorizing offense. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Rodriguez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and he failed to preserve his arguments on sufficiency of the evidence and the necessity of a special verdict form. The Court, therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Simon Hofer appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to driving under the influence. He argued the district court was required to suppress the results of the urine test because the implied consent advisory was not substantively complete and the search warrant did not cure the defect in the advisory. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the implied consent advisory given in this case did not convey all substantive information required by statute, and as a result the test result was not admissible in a criminal proceeding. View "City of Fargo v. Hofer" on Justia Law

Stephanie Foote appealed an order denying her motion to suppress evidence and from the criminal judgment entered after she conditionally pled guilty to a charge of actual physical control (APC) of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Foote argued the district court erred in determining that she was not unconstitutionally seized and, thus, her motion to suppress should have been granted. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Foote" on Justia Law

John Hirschkorn was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and driving under the influence of alcohol. The charges arose from an altercation in a McLean County, North Dakota bar that was captured on video. Hirschkorn was involved in a bar fight with another individual, resulting in Hirschkorn striking that individual in the face with a beer bottle and causing a serious cut to the individual’s face. Hirschkorn also sustained several injuries, including a blow to his head. After the fight concluded, Hirschkorn left the bar and drove away from the scene. Law enforcement officers arrived at the bar, and the individual was taken to the hospital. Officers subsequently located Hirschkorn driving his vehicle. He was stopped and ultimately arrested for driving under the influence. Because Hirschkorn was taken to the hospital to be medically cleared before testing, it was more than two hours after he had last driven that an Intoxilyzer test established his blood alcohol concentration to be 0.139 percent, over the legal limit. Before jury selection, Hirschkorn made a motion in limine requesting the court to exclude a video from the bar showing at least a portion of the fight. The court subsequently received the video into evidence at trial over his objection. The court also allowed limited testimony at trial from a neuropsychologist called as an expert witness by Hirschkorn to discuss symptoms of traumatic brain injury, to show Hirschkorn had sustained a brain injury caused by the other individual in the altercation, and to support the reasonableness of his claim of self-defense. Hirschkorn argued on appeal the district court should have excluded the exhibit including bar videos and the court should not have limited the neuropsychologist’s expert testimony. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Hirschkorn" on Justia Law

Terry George appealed a domestic violence protection order entered against him, claiming the district court erred, without properly explaining the factual basis for its decision, in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported that actual or imminent domestic violence had or would occur. Nicole Lindstaedt and George dated for approximately four years. They lived together and had a child in common. In February 2020, Lindstaedt petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against George, alleging he choked her, punched her, threatened to kill her, and forced her to have sex with him. After a hearing, the district court found George had committed domestic violence and issued a protection order against him. The order prohibited George from having contact with Lindstaedt for two years. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s finding of domestic violence was not induced by an erroneous view of the law, nor was the Court left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. The Supreme Court's review of the record showed Lindstaedt presented sufficient evidence for the district court to find domestic violence by recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the domestic violence protection order. View "Lindstaedt v. George" on Justia Law

In 2007 a jury found Timler Everett guilty of gross sexual imposition. Everett appealed a district court order denying his petition for postconviction relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. Everett argued the trial court erred in denying his petition and dismissing his related motions. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court’s current order as denying Everett leave to file additional motions. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. Therefore, the Court dismissed Everett’s appeal. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Cody Atkins appealed a district court order denying his motion to vacate a criminal judgment and withdraw his plea of guilty. In June 2015, Atkins pled guilty to violating an order prohibiting contact, a class A misdemeanor. Atkins did not appeal the criminal judgment entered following his guilty plea. On appeal, Atkins’ counsel sought permission to file an “Anders” brief or, in the alternative, permission to withdraw as Atkins’ counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court denied the request to file an Anders brief, granted the motion to withdraw as Atkins’ counsel, and ordered a schedule for additional filings. The Court has held previously that the procedures set forth in "Anders" did not apply to North Dakota law because, under the state constitution and statutes, an appeal was a matter of right which eliminated the need for an Anders proceeding. In light of the representation of Atkins’ defense counsel that the appeal lacked merit and Atkins’ own request for new counsel, the Court granted the request to withdraw as counsel. Atkins was given time to submit a request for the appointment of appellate counsel. View "Atkins v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dustin Sackenreuter appealed after his conditional guilty plea to refusing to take a chemical breath test. He argued that the implied consent advisory he received was insufficient under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(f), that subsection (1)(f) was unconstitutionally void for vagueness, that subsection (1)(f) was ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favor, and that his special jury instructions should not have been rejected. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Sackenreuter" on Justia Law