Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Jorgenson apealed a district court's order approving pretrial diversion and order of restitution. The State charged Jorgenson with two counts of theft of property for depriving Jackie Blikre of proceeds from the sale of calves. The district court approved a pretrial diversion agreement entered into by the parties ("Diversion Order"), suspending prosecution for sixty months after which the charges would be dismissed if Jorgenson met certain conditions. One such condition was that Jorgenson "shall pay restitution to be determined by the Court at a contested Restitution Hearing . . . ." After a restitution hearing, the district court ordered Jorgenson to pay restitution in the amount of $50,000. Although these orders were not appealable under N.D.C.C. 29-28-06, the North Dakota Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to review them. Because these orders did not comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.2, they were vacated. View "North Dakota v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

Ashley Hunter appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of murder and one count of arson. On the afternoon of June 22, 2015, Fargo police officers responded to a call about a death at a north Fargo location and found the body of Clarence Flowers. Flowers had been stabbed numerous times. Later that day, firefighters responded to a call about a fire at another north Fargo location and found the body of Samuel Traut. Traut had been killed by blunt force trauma to the head. The next morning Fargo police officers were dispatched to an address near the Traut murder scene in response to a call about a suspicious male. When officers arrived at the address, Hunter approached them and was arrested. Hunter was considered a person of interest in the Traut death, but the officers arrested him on a bench warrant for unrelated charges. Hunter was taken to the police station, where he was questioned by Fargo police. Hunter made several incriminating statements related to the Flowers and Traut murders. After the interview was complete, Hunter attempted suicide and was taken to the hospital. Hunter was charged with two counts of murder and one count of arson. Hunter argued on appeal: (1) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress; (2) the court erred in allowing testimony about his statements to a medical professional; and (3) the judge should have recused himself. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Ronald Beltran appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence and driving under suspension. Beltran argued the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict him of driving under the influence. Beltran also argued the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the introduction of medical records and denying his request to stipulate to his license status. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Beltran" on Justia Law

James Blue II appealed convictions after entering Alford pleas to two counts of terrorizing, seven counts of reckless endangerment, two counts of simple assault on emergency medical personnel, three counts of contact by bodily fluids, unlawful possession of a firearm, interference with a telephone during an emergency call, and attempted murder. These charges arose from an assault of his then-girlfriend in 2016. After he entered his pleas, the State requested restitution in the amount of $2,716.13. The requested restitution represented the cost of disposing of the destroyed residence, reimbursement to Workers' Compensation (or the equivalent), and reimbursement to Medicaid for various medical expenses. The district court asked Blue if he wanted a restitution hearing or if he wanted to stipulate to the amount. Blue indicated he would stipulate to the restitution and the court found Blue was making a knowing and intelligent decision to stipulate to restitution. Blue did not argue on appeal for a reduction of the restitution; rather, he only argued the court needed to make a factual finding that he was able to pay the restitution. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-08(1)(b) when ordering restitution, and reversed as to that issue. The Court affirmed Blue’s conviction in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Blue" on Justia Law

Paul Schaffner appealed a district court order finding him guilty of prostitution/solicitation under City of Bismarck, N.D., Code of Ordinances section 6-05-08(1)(b). Because there was sufficient evidence of prostitution/solicitation and because any potential argument concerning a conflict between the city ordinance and state law was waived, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Bismarck v. Schaffner" on Justia Law

Joshua Taylor appealed after a jury found him guilty of refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. Throughout the proceedings, Taylor represented himself and maintained that a video from the arresting officer's patrol vehicle would establish he stopped at the stop sign. The record did not include a written request for discovery by Taylor, but in his appellate brief he claimed he requested the audio and video recordings from the state's attorney's office and was ultimately told the materials were unrecoverable. In response to a district court inquiry about the status of discovery at a pretrial dispositional conference, Taylor indicated "[i]t sounds like what I was waiting on is unrecoverable," and he moved to dismiss the charge for "lack of evidence." He argued the arresting officer did not have a valid reason for the initial traffic stop and, as a result, the officer's subsequent requests for an onsite screening test and a chemical test were invalid. Taylor thereafter requested a jury instruction under N.D.C.C. 39-20-14(1), which authorized a law enforcement officer to request an onsite screening test if the officer "has reason to believe that the individual committed a moving traffic violation . . . and in conjunction with the violation . . . the officer has, through the officer's observations, formulated an opinion that the individual's body contains alcohol." The district court provided the jury with preliminary instructions, including an instruction on the essential elements of the charge of refusing a chemical test. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined there was sufficient evidence establishing that Taylor drove his vehicle on a road in Richland County and that he refused to submit to the Intoxilyzer test. The Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss. View "North Dakota v. Taylor" on Justia Law

In April 2017, Deputy Taylor Schiller was patrolling in an area north of Rugby, North Dakota, looking for a brown or tan Ford SUV that had been reported stolen. Deputy Schiller saw a vehicle matching that description. The SUV was actually maroon, but Deputy Schiller testified it initially appeared to be tan because it was covered with dirt and road dust. This vehicle pulled over and came to a stop without a signal to stop from Deputy Schiller. Deputy Schiller pulled over as well, exited his squad car, and attempted to contact the driver. Before he made contact with the driver, the SUV drove away. Deputy Schiller was unable to read the license plate number of the SUV at that time. Deputy Schiller returned to his car and activated his emergency lights. After the SUV again pulled over, Deputy Schiller exited his vehicle to make contact with the driver. Prior to making contact, he read the license plate number and noted that it did not match the license plate number of the stolen SUV. As he continued to approach the vehicle, Deputy Schiller recognized the driver as defendant Sandon Erickson. Because of their prior contacts, he knew Erickson had a suspended license. Deputy Schiller also saw an open case of Keystone Light beer in the front-seat passenger side of Erickson's vehicle. He then informed Erickson that he had stopped him pursuant to a stolen vehicle investigation. Deputy Schiller testified he could detect the odor of alcohol, and he arrested Erickson for driving under the influence. Erickson moved to suppress evidence obtained after the deputy read the plate and ruled out the vehicle as stolen. The district court denied Erickson's motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that extension of the stop for an explanation did not transform the stop into an unconstitutional seizure. View "North Dakota v. Erickson" on Justia Law

Jessica Broom appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Bismarck Police Officers Jones and Girodat were on patrol, stopped at a railroad crossing waiting for a train to pass. The officers checked the license plate of the red 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix in front of them. The license plate check revealed the car was stolen, and once the train passed, the officers stopped the vehicle. Because the stop was a "felony, high-risk" stop, the officers approached the stolen vehicle with their handguns out. Officer Jones approached the driver's side. Officer Girodat approached the passenger side. The officers repeatedly instructed the occupants to get their hands up, and the driver complied immediately. The passenger, who the officers recognized from previous drug arrests as Jessica Broom, did not comply with the officers' orders. Broom moved side to side in the vehicle, made furtive movements in the passenger compartment, and did not put her hands up. Officer Jones took the driver into custody while Officer Girodat detained Broom after removing her from the vehicle. Other officers arrived at the scene and a female officer, Officer Gallagher, approached as Broom was being handcuffed. Officers Jones and Girodat told Officer Gallagher that Broom was known to conceal items in her orifices, had not complied with commands, and she appeared to be moving around in the vehicle after the stop. As Officer Gallagher conducted a pat-down search of Broom's person, she felt a large, soft bulge in Broom's bra which Broom claimed was cash. Officer Gallagher retrieved the money from the bra to verify Broom's claim. In addition to a wad of money, Officer Gallagher discovered a baggie filled with several other baggies, a small glass vial, and a rolled-up ten dollar bill. Officer Gallagher put Broom in the back of her police car and placed her under arrest. In response to her motion to suppress the evidence from that search, the district court determined: "the uncertainty of what Broom was concealing, together with the facts that Broom was discovered in a stolen vehicle, that Broom had failed to comply with their lawful commands and continued to make furtive actions after being directly told to stop doing the same, her extreme anxiety and nervousness, in addition to the officer's knowledge of Broom's criminal history and ability to furtively conceal items on and in her body, they had reasonable grounds to search for possible weapons and to determine what was concealed in her bra." The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that the search of Broom, while she was handcuffed, away from the vehicle, with a "soft" or "squishy" bulge in her bra was not enough to suggest it was "of the size and density that might be a weapon justifying a more intrusive search." The Court therefore concluded the police officer's invasive search of Broom's person violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment and N.D. Const. art. I, section 8. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Broom" on Justia Law

In February 2015, officers seized $3,260 in United States currency from Ronald Newhauser. Newhauser was a passenger in a vehicle where police discovered methamphetamine and other paraphernalia. Newhauser was charged in connection with this stop in district court, but those charges were later dismissed because of federal charges relating to the incident against Newhauser. The State served Newhauser in this forfeiture action in September 2017. Newhauser moved for summary judgment, which he supported with an affidavit. In his affidavit, Newhauser admitted the $3,260 was in his wallet and officers seized it as part of the traffic stop. Newhauser also said he obtained the $3,260 from his social security disability income and savings from working occasionally for a contractor. The State responded to Newhauser's motion, but it did not support its response with any affidavits or other evidence. In its response, the State argued Newhauser raised factual questions through his affidavit requiring an evidentiary hearing. The State never scheduled a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The district court granted Newhauser's motion for summary judgment, noting the State and Newhauser's arguments regarding the promptness of the action and lack of significant nexus between the property seized and offense committed. But the district court concluded the State failed to rebut any facts set forth by Newhauser in his affidavit. Because the State failed to present any evidence that created a genuine dispute of material fact, the district court granted Newhauser's motion for summary judgment without holding a hearing. The district court entered a judgment requiring the State to return the $3,260 to Newhauser. The State appealed. Finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment to Newhauser, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. $3260.00 United States Currency" on Justia Law

LeRoy Wheeler appeals a district court judgment granting Governor Doug Burgum's motion to dismiss and denying Wheeler's motion to appoint counsel. Wheeler was an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary ("NDSP"), who filed a complaint alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by Governor Burgum in both his official capacity and his personal capacity. The complaint alleged Governor Burgum failed to supervise and govern officials and staff at the NDSP. Wheeler claims that NDSP officials and staff interfered with his mail, discriminated against him on the basis of race, denied him access to the courts, prevented him from challenging the conditions of his confinement, and retaliated against him for exercising his rights. Wheeler sent Governor Burgum two letters commenting on the conduct of these individuals. Governor Burgum did not respond to the letters. Wheeler sought injunctive relief against Governor Burgum in his official capacity for failing to supervise the actions of officials and staff at the NDSP. Wheeler also sought punitive damages for Governor Burgum's failure to respond to his letters or otherwise investigate the issues described in his letters. Additionally, Wheeler moved for appointed counsel. Governor Burgum moved to dismiss the complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and opposed Wheeler's motion to appoint counsel. The district court granted Governor Burgum's motion to dismiss and denied Wheeler's motion for appointment of counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed Wheeler failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, so the district court did not err by granting Governor Burgum's motion to dismiss. Further, the district court did not err by denying Wheeler's motion to appoint counsel. View "Wheeler v. Burgum" on Justia Law