Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jody Jangula appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for two years. In January 2015 Jangula was charged with actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. At the February 2015 hearing, the Department offered a number of exhibits into evidence, including exhibit 1 showing Jangula's blood alcohol concentration of .226 percent by weight. Jangula objected, contending the analytical report had not been certified or authenticated and the Department had not complied with the relevant statutes and rules of evidence. The hearing officer overruled Jangula's objections and admitted the exhibit into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the hearing officer did not abuse its discretion in admitting the blood sample report into evidence at the administrative hearing. View "Jangula v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

John Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence obtained in a traffic stop resulting in his arrest for driving under the influence. According to testimony at the suppression hearing, a McLean County Sheriff's deputy responded to reported drug use in a Turtle Lake alley. The deputy testified the alley was paved and maintained by the City of Turtle Lake. A second deputy testified the alley was paved and gravel in part, but was nonetheless public. Upon surveiling the area, the first deputy testified to observing a vehicle exit the alley without signaling before turning. Believing this failure was a traffic violation, the deputy radioed the second deputy to stop the vehicle. After executing the stop, the second deputy arrested Hirschkorn. Hirschkorn moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop, arguing no reasonable suspicion justified the stop because the law does not require drivers to signal prior to exiting alleys. Because Hirschkorn's failure to signal was not a traffic violation, the district court concluded no reasonable suspicion justified the traffic stop. The court accordingly suppressed evidence resulting from the stop. On appeal, the State argued the district court erred in suppressing evidence from the traffic stop because the court misinterpreted the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the State's argument that Hirschkorn and the district court misinterpreted the law, and reversed the district court's suppression order. View "North Dakota v. Hirschkorn" on Justia Law

According to a police affidavit, officers responding to a reported disturbance observed one man holding another man in a headlock and repeatedly punching his face. The men were identified as defendant-appellant Benjamin Clayton and his father, respectively. As a result of the fight, both men suffered facial injuries. Clayton's father also suffered a broken ankle, which required corrective medical care. After charging Clayton with aggravated assault, the State amended its charge to simple assault and Clayton pled guilty. After the district court entered an according criminal judgment, the State moved to amend the judgment to include restitution of $24,897.16 for medical expenses associated with the ankle injury. Clayton appealed the judgment ordering him to pay $24,897.16 in restitution. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Clayton" on Justia Law

According to S.S.'s testimony, she invited defendant-appellant Brandon Carlson to her residence to watch a movie with her and T.P. During the movie, both S.S. and T.P. fell asleep. According to T.P.'s testimony, she awoke to Carlson having sex with her. Afterwards, S.S. testified she awoke to Carlson forcing her hand on his penis and performing a sexual act. Based on these allegations, the State charged Carlson with two counts of gross sexual imposition. Carlson appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Carlson" on Justia Law

As was relevant in this appeal, the State charged defendant-appellant Mark Beaulieu with refusal to halt and disorderly conduct. At trial, a police officer testified he saw Beaulieu leaving the scene of a reported disturbance. The officer testified he instructed Beaulieu to stop multiple times. After approaching Beaulieu, the officer testified Beaulieu turned in an aggressive manner, causing the officer to step into Beaulieu and resulting in the two going to the ground. The officer testified Beaulieu landed on his back. The officer also testified Beaulieu had a previously bloodied face. Beaulieu contradicted this testimony, testifying he did not hear the officer's instruction. He further testified the officer tackled him and he landed on his face, causing it to become bloodied. After his arrest, the officer brought Beaulieu to jail, where jailers took Beaulieu's mug shot. The jury found Beaulieu not guilty of disorderly conduct but guilty of refusal to halt. Beaulieu appealed the trial court's order denying his motion for new trial following his conviction for refusal to halt. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Beaulieu" on Justia Law

Justin Baker appealed after a jury found him guilty of escape. While Baker was serving jail time at the Grand Forks County Correctional Center, he was granted temporary leave. He failed to return, and was charged with escape, a class C felony. Baker was granted appointed counsel, and they reached a plea agreement with the State. After reaching the plea agreement, Baker spoke with his family and decided he would rather go forward with a trial. At the change of plea hearing, Baker's attorney informed the district court that Baker would not accept the plea agreement and would like to proceed to trial with a new attorney. Because of the assurances he had made to the State's attorney and the court, and to avoid future ethical issues or complaints, the attorney stated he wished to withdraw from the case. When asked by the court whether he had talked to another attorney for private hire, Baker stated his father was trying to get ahold of one, but had been unable to reach him. The court informed Baker it was inclined to approve his attorney's motion to withdraw, if filed, and also informed Baker he would be allowed to obtain private counsel if he desired. The court stated, however, that a new attorney would not be appointed, because his current appointed counsel was capable of representing him and proceeding to trial. After the hearing, Baker's appointed counsel moved to withdraw from the case, and the district court granted the motion. At trial, Baker represented himself. The jury found him guilty of escape. He argued on appeal that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the district court allowed his appointed counsel to withdraw from the case. The Supreme Court concluded the record did not establish Baker knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Baker" on Justia Law

Adrian Williams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Williams argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the warrantless search of his hotel room violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Williams" on Justia Law

On June 15, 2014, Minot police arrested defendant-appellant Robert Putney for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. The City of Minot charged Putney with simple assault for violating a city ordinance. On June 16, 2014, Putney pled guilty to the charge in municipal court and the court sentenced him to 30 days in jail. In July, the State charged Putney with aggravated assault for shooting his girlfriend during the June 2014 incident. Putney moved to dismiss the charge because of double jeopardy, claiming the two charges related to the same incident. The State argued there were two assaults. The district court denied the motion. Following a bench trial, the court found Putney guilty of aggravated assault. Putney moved for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. The court denied the motions, concluding it could not judicially notice the city ordinance, resulting in its inability to perform a double jeopardy analysis. The court sentenced Putney to four years in prison followed by five years of probation and reserved jurisdiction to determine restitution at a later date. Putney appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the State sought to have Putney pay $99,117.55 in restitution for the victim's medical expenses. Following a hearing, the court ordered Putney to pay $49,559 to the Crime Victims Reparation Fund and Trinity Medical Center, and he appealed the restitution order. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Putney" on Justia Law

According to testimony at the suppression hearing, in October 2013, Fargo Police Officer Matt Christensen received information from a department detective that defendant-appellant Chili Musselman would be traveling from Washington State to Fargo on an Amtrak train and that she would have drugs in her possession. The detective had obtained this information from a named informant in another case. Officer Christensen testified the informant's information given to the detective matched up with other information he had been given from drug task force officers, including Officer Christopher McCarthy. Officer Christensen passed the information on to other officers, including McCarthy, who were investigating Musselman in another case. Musselman appealed after a jury found her guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. On appeal, she argued a Fourth Amendment violation because the police officers who arrested her did not have reasonable grounds to stop and question her at the train station. Because there was reasonable suspicion to stop her, the order denying the motion to suppress was proper. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Musselman" on Justia Law

This case was another in an endless stream of repetitive actions stemming from Randy Holkesvig's 2008 stalking charge to which he pled guilty. Under a negotiated plea agreement, Holkesvig pled guilty to stalking in exchange for dismissal of an additional charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. In addition to bringing numerous other actions, Holkesvig petitioned for post-conviction relief from the consequences of his pleading guilty to stalking, which was denied by the district court and summarily affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Holkesvig sued Gerald VandeWalle, individually and as Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the State of North Dakota, alleging numerous claims, including, obstruction of justice, defamation, corruption, deceit, fraud, false statements, breach of duty, conspiracy, collusion, racketeering, obstruction, and North Dakota constitutional violations. Holkesvig's ultimate grievance appeared to, at least in part, arise from a misstatement of the procedural facts in "Holkesvig v. North Dakota," where the Supreme Court stated, "Holkesvig's guilty plea was accepted by the district court in 2008 as part of a negotiated plea agreement between his lawyer and the State, which agreement included the State dropping charges that Holkesvig violated a domestic violence protection order." The district court dismissed Holkesvig's lawsuit on the ground it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims. Holkesvig moved for relief from the district court's judgment. The district court denied Holkesvig's motion for failure to comply with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and N.D.R.Civ. P. 60(b). Holkesvig timely appealed. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court appropriately determined Holkesvig violated an order prohibiting him from filing further lawsuits that arose out of or related to his 2008 stalking charge and charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order, it affirmed. View "Holkesvig v. VandeWalle" on Justia Law