Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Laura Rende appealed after a jury found her guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded this case for a new trial, finding that the disclosure of a preliminary breath test result during Rende's trial violated the legislative directive contained in N.D.C.C. 39-20-14(3), was not harmless error, and required the granting of Rende's request for a mistrial. View "North Dakota v. Rende" on Justia Law

Delvin Shaw appealed after a jury found him guilty of murder and burglary. Shaw argued the district court erred in admitting evidence of other crimes or bad acts, and the court erred in playing the earlier testimony of a State's witness after finding the witness was unavailable to testify at trial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Mark Brown appealed four criminal judgments entered after the district court found him guilty of driving while under suspension on four separate occasions. Brown argued there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and the district court erred in enhancing the classification for the final conviction to a class A misdemeanor. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Michael Rivera appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of creating or possessing sexually expressive images, two counts of attempting to create or possess sexually expressive images, and six counts of surreptitious intrusion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err by sentencing Rivera to consecutive sentences. View "North Dakota v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Michael Rivera appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of creating or possessing sexually expressive images, two counts of attempting to create or possess sexually expressive images, and six counts of surreptitious intrusion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err by sentencing Rivera to consecutive sentences. View "North Dakota v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Shawn Montgomery appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to a charge of driving under the influence. Montgomery argued the State violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search by compelling his consent to a blood test. Voluntary consent to a warrantless blood test is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, for which the State bears the burden of proof. A district court's decision on a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

When considering whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a container found within an automobile, courts will look at whether the individual: (1) asserts ownership of the container; (2) asserts ownership of the vehicle; (3) testifies or presents evidence establishing possessory interest in the container; (4) was present at the time of the search; and (5) whether the container itself has identifying markings or if the contents within have identifying characteristics. Casey Adams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Police received a report of suspicious activity in a Grand Forks parking lot. The caller reported individuals moving backpacks from a Nissan into a Cadillac, among other suspicious behavior. Three officers responded to the scene. The officers testified they observed the individuals displaying odd behavior, consistent with drug use. One officer observed a blue container he believed to be drug paraphernalia inside the Cadillac, indicating he saw a crystal or powder substance on it and it was similar to a container used in a separate drug related call less than 24 hours prior. Three individuals were in the Cadillac and Adams was in the Nissan. No consent was given to search either vehicle. Based on the observation of the blue container in plain view, the officers searched the Cadillac and seized more than 80 items relating to drug use. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Adams' argument that the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not support the district court's probable cause finding was moot. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Adams' motion to suppress evidence because Adams failed to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpacks. View "North Dakota v. Adams" on Justia Law

Joshua Gomez appealed an order of civil commitment after the district court determined he was a sexually dangerous individual ("SDI"). Gomez argued the district court erred in allowing the State to call as a witness an expert appointed on his behalf. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Matter of Gomez" on Justia Law