Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jonathan Guthmiller appealed a criminal judgment after he pled guilty to luring a minor by computer. In April 2017 the State charged Guthmiller with luring a minor by computer after an investigation uncovered inappropriate sexual messages and photographs exchanged on the social media platform Snapchat between Guthmiller and a fifteen-year-old. Guthmiller argued the district court abused its discretion when denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and erred by failing to advise him of a mandatory period of probation. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

Morgan Lies appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation decision suspending his driving privileges for ninety-one days. Lies argued the hearing officer’s decision violated his constitutional rights because neither the arresting officer nor the officer who received the tip had a reasonable and articulable suspicion Lies was violating the law prior to being stopped. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the record did not support the administrative officer’s conclusion that the vehicle was properly identified prior to being stopped, and reversed. View "Lies v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Travis Morsette appealed a judgment entered upon a guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded there was not reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, it reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings to allow Morsette to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Morsette" on Justia Law

Shaun Ebach appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative hearing officer’s decision to suspend Ebach’s driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Ebach argued the administrative hearing officer erred by admitting invalid chemical breath test records and by making result-oriented findings of fact, and that he was entitled to attorney fees and costs. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the test record was properly admitted, and a reasoning mind reasonably could have concluded the administrative hearing officer’s finding that the officer who administered the Intoxilyzer test ascertained a 20-minute waiting period prior to administering the test was supported by the weight of the evidence on the entire record. View "Ebach v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Jared Nikle appealed a criminal judgment entered after the district court found him guilty of actual physical control while under the influence in violation of Fargo Municipal Code 08-0310. On appeal, Nikle argued he was entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Nikle failed to meet his burden in raising the affirmative defense, and therefore affirmed the criminal judgment. View "City of Fargo v. Nikle" on Justia Law

David Laverdure appealed a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. Relying on information from a concerned citizen and a “source of information” about short term traffic and potential heroin distribution, a Fargo detective took part in a garbage search at Laverdure’s residence on July 11, 2017. The searched garbage cans had been placed on the street in front of the residence in a City of Fargo container for the residence’s usual garbage pickup day. The garbage contained two sealed grocery bags and a sealed trash bag. A search of the bags revealed a broken glass pipe with methamphetamine residue, a small clear bag containing white powdery residue, and four used hypodermic syringes. the detective applied for a search warrant for Laverdure’s residence. In his application and affidavit in support of the search warrant, the detective described the two tips he received and the results of the garbage search. The affidavit did not state if anyone had observed the garbage container being placed on the street. The affidavit also did not state if the garbage contained mail or other items connecting it to Laverdure or the residence. The magistrate issued the search warrant. While executing the warrant, narcotics and related paraphernalia were found. Laverdure was arrested. The district court denied the suppression motion, finding sufficient probable cause existed for the search warrant. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court's denial of Laverdure's suppression motion and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Laverdure" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order finding Michael Brewer had received ineffective assistance of counsel and granting him a new trial. Brewer was convicted of two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition (“GSI”). He appealed the judgment of conviction, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Both victims of the GSI counts, J.L. and G.H., were minors. Three interviews were received into evidence: one interview given by G.H. regarding a separate incident occurring at the home of Brewer and G.H.’s aunt, Brewer’s girlfriend, prior to the pool incident; and two interviews regarding the charged incident - one from each of the minor children about interactions Brewer had with them in a hotel pool. In the interview about the home incident, G.H. stated Brewer had placed his hand on her buttocks inside her pants but outside her underwear. At trial, Brewer’s attorney did not object to evidence that was likely inadmissible under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b). The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the trial attorney’s failure to object was not simply a trial tactic. Brewer’s attorney testified in the postconviction hearing that he did not object because he “felt that [he] had adequately formed a record in the hearing on the motion itself [and] did not need to raise it.” The Court found that statement admitted a legal error that was below an objective standard of reasonableness. Beyond the intentional failure to object, the attorney stated affirmatively “no objection” when the State offered the 404(b) interview. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in granting postconviction relief on both GSI convictions because both were subject to the same prejudice that Rule 404(b) was formulated to protect against. View "Brewer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Paul King was convicted by jury of refusing to submit to chemical testing after being arrested for driving under the influence. The charges were made pursuant to Bismarck City Ordinance 12-10-01(1). King argued on appeal the district court erred in denying his request to give his proposed jury instructions, failing to give him an opportunity to object to the jury instructions, and allowing testimony about a preliminary screening test. Finding no reversible error from the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Bismarck v. King" on Justia Law

Jasmine Nice appealed a district court judgment entered on her conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence-refusal-first offense in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(e)(2) pending an appeal of the court’s order denying her motion to dismiss. Nice argued N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(e) was unconstitutional, the deputy violated her due process rights when he read her the implied consent advisory multiple times, and the State’s failure to execute the search warrant should have resulted in dismissal of the refusal charge. Because Nice refused to take a urine test after a search warrant was secured, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Nice" on Justia Law

Rodney Chisholm appeals from the district court’s summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief, denial of his motion to compel, denial of his request for counsel, and denial of his request for a change of judge. Chisholm’s application for post-conviction relief stems from his conviction of murder on May 3, 2011. Chisholm was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the properly denied the peremptory demand for change of judge, and the Court affirmed the denial of the peremptory demand. The request for recusal of the assigned judge should have been considered by the assigned judge, and the Supreme Court therefore reversed the denial of the request for recusal based on bias and prejudice. The matter was remanded for consideration of the request for recusal for bias or prejudice by the assigned judge and, subsequent to a determination on the request for recusal, reconsideration of the motion to compel discovery, request for appointment of counsel, and summary dismissal of the post-conviction application. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law