Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Edward Skorick appealed from a district court order civilly committing him as a sexually dangerous individual. In September 2018, the State petitioned to have Skorick civilly committed. Two experts, Dr. Richard Travis and Dr. Stacey Benson, submitted reports and each opined that Skorick met the criteria of a sexually dangerous individual and recommended that Skorick be committed as a sexually dangerous individual. Skorick argued the court erroneously considered the experts’ reports in making its decision. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the district court indeed relied on Dr. Benson’s and Dr. Travis’ reports in making its decision. The district court’s memorandum decision and order stated that although Dr. Benson did not testify at the hearing, the court “received and reviewed her report.” The court’s order also stated, “The [report] of each psychologist was reviewed extensively by the court in preparation for the hearing and again following the hearing. The findings that follow are based upon a weighing of the testimony and credibility of each psychologist in light of their respective evaluative findings.” The State conceded the district court may have erroneously considered Dr. Benson’s report. The State did not offer the report into evidence at the commitment hearing; however, it argued any error in considering the report was harmless. The Supreme Court found the court’s order specifically mentioned Dr. Benson’s report seven times in its findings of fact. To the extent the court relied on Dr. Benson’s report in making its decision, the Supreme Court could not conclude its reliance on the report was harmless, therefore finding the court abused its discretion in considering Dr. Benson’s report. With regard to Dr. Travis’ report, the State did not offer it into evidence, and the district court’s order was silent on whether it was part of the hearing record. Because the Supreme Court was uncertain whether Dr. Travis’ report was admitted at the hearing, it reversed and remanded for a determination of whether the report was part of the hearing record. If not, the court had to make findings on whether Skorick was a sexually dangerous individual on the basis of Dr. Travis’ testimony at the hearing. View "Interest of Skorick" on Justia Law

Richard Scott was convicted by jury of solicitation of a minor and child neglect. Scott argued the district court erred when it did not instruct the jury on the defense of double jeopardy. He also argues the court erred when it did not conduct a hearing concerning the trustworthiness of the child-victim’s out-of-court statements under N.D.R.Ev. 803(24). Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Scott" on Justia Law

Steven Helm appealed after he was found guilty of driving under the influence, a fourth offense in fifteen years. He argued the State failed to present evidence on the second essential element that he was under the influence. Because Helm failed to preserve the issue he argued on appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Helm" on Justia Law

The Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a hearing officer’s decision suspending Jeremy Grove’s driver’s license. Grove was arrested and cited for driving under the influence of alcohol. A chemical test showed Grove had a blood alcohol concentration of .232% by weight. The hearing officer suspended Grove’s driver’s license for 180 days concluding, based on the results of the field sobriety tests, the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest Grove, Grove was tested in accordance with N.D.C.C. 39-20-01, and Intoxilyzer test results showed Grove had an alcohol concentration of at least .08% by weight. Grove appealed the hearing officer’s decision to the district court. Grove argued: (1) the hearing officer erred by admitting the Report and Notice form into evidence when it contained the results of the on-site screening test and probable cause was not challenged; and (2) omission of the phrase “directed by the law enforcement officer” from the implied consent advisory rendered the advisory incorrect under the North Dakota Supreme Court’s then-recently issued opinion City of Bismarck v. Vagts, 932 N.W.2d 523 (2019). Grove did not argue to the district court that adding the words “breath” and “urine” rendered the advisory incorrect as he did at the administrative hearing. The district court reversed the hearing officer’s decision. The court determined, “omission of the phrase ‘directed by the law enforcement officer’ was a substantive omission and not in compliance with the statutory requirements for the implied consent advisory” under Vagts. The Department argued the district court erred in reversing the hearing officer’s decision based on an issue Grove failed to preserve for appeal. To this argument, the North Dakota Supreme Court concurred: Grove did not raise the same issue on appeal to the district court that he did at the administrative hearing or in his specification of error to the district court, the issue was precluded from review. The district court's judgment was reversed and the administrative hearing officer's decision reinstated. View "Grove v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Austin Pouliot appealed following his conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence. Pouliot preserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion seeking to exclude from evidence the results of a chemical test. Pouliot contended the results should have been excluded from evidence pursuant to N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(b) because law enforcement failed to properly administer the chemical test when the arresting officer who read the post-arrest implied consent warning was not the officer who conducted the testing. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. "As a matter of law ... N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(b), does not apply because this is a criminal proceeding and because this case does not involve a refusal to take the chemical test." View "North Dakota v. Pouliot" on Justia Law

Michael Truelove appealed dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief. Truelove alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial and requests his criminal judgment vacated. Truelove claimed: (1) he did not consent to his counsel’s concession to the jury that he struck the victim; (2) he was coerced into testifying at trial; and (3) there was a lack of effective communication with his trial counsel. Finding no reversible error or constitutionally ineffective performance, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Truelove v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2018, Walter James was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and fraudulent practices in urine testing. The district court appointed an attorney for James after determining he qualified as indigent. The court subsequently dismissed James’ court appointed attorney after James became employed and no longer qualified as indigent. James represented himself at trial in July 2019, and the jury found James guilty of both charges. The court sentenced James to four years in prison with two years suspended. On appeal, James contended he was deprived of his right to counsel, claimed there was an error in the post-verdict polling of the jury, claimed the district court erred in the issuance of a search warrant because it lacked jurisdiction, and argued there was a violation of his right to confront witnesses against him. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. James" on Justia Law

Mackenzie Harstad appealed a district court’s judgment ordering restitution for unrecovered personal property. The personal property was in a vehicle at the time the vehicle was stolen, but was not in the vehicle seven days later when Harstad was arrested for, and charged with, possession of the stolen vehicle. Harstad was not charged with the theft of the vehicle. Harstad argued the district court abused its discretion by ordering restitution for the unrecovered personal property because there was no immediate and intimate causal connection between the criminal conduct and the loss of the personal property. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred with this, reversed and remanded to the district court for a redetermination of the amount of restitution. View "North Dakota v. Harstad" on Justia Law

James Kremer appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. In 2014, FBI agents seized computers, hard drives, and other electronic devices belonging to Kremer. Child pornography was found on some of the devices. The agents interviewed Kremer regarding the devices and the explicit material discovered on the devices. Kremer claimed ownership of the electronic devices and acknowledged the explicit material found on them. In November 2015, Kremer entered into a stipulation with federal prosecutors in which Kremer agreed to plead guilty to charges related to the matter in North Dakota state court. Had Kremer not pleaded guilty in state court, the stipulation stated prosecution of the matter would continue in federal court. Kremer was facing a 15 year minimum mandatory sentence if convicted in federal court. Kremer argued he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and because the district court did not adhere to the procedure set forth in N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kremer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Richard Powley appealed after a jury found him guilty of three counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI). Powley was on parole at the time of his arrest. Detectives believed there was evidence of communications between Powley and the victim of the aggravated assault on Powley’s cell phone. As part of the warrantless search of Powley’s cell phone, detectives discovered videos of Powley sexually assaulting an adult woman. These videos led to the GSI charges. On appeal, Powley argued the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained the warrantless search of his cell phone. The North Dakota Supreme Court had held previously that warrantless searches of supervised probationers based on reasonable suspicion were not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. "'By virtue of their status alone, parolees have 'everely diminished expectations of privacy.'" The Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Powley’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his cell phone because the search of Powley’s cell phone was not in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. View "North Dakota v. Powley" on Justia Law