Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Marcus Chatman appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana by a driver. Chatman argued the district court should have suppressed evidence because illegally seized evidence was used to establish probable cause for a search warrant. He also argued his Sixth Amendment confrontation and compulsory process rights were violated. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Chatman" on Justia Law

Daryl Hennings appealed a criminal judgment finding him guilty of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Deputy Sheriff Thom was dispatched to investigate a complaint dirt-bikes were being driven at the Pipestem Dam recreational area near Jamestown. When Thom arrived he heard dirt-bikes near the bottom of the dam and saw a headlight in the trees. Approximately ten minutes later Thom came to a prairie trail where he saw Hennings and another man, Wayne Deery, standing by two dirt-bikes. Thom smelled alcohol when he approached the men. A third man, Gary Ronholm, approached on a dirt-bike. While Thom checked the men's driver's licenses in his vehicle, Deery fled the scene on foot. Thom called for assistance and Sergeant Hoyt and Trooper Sova arrived approximately fifteen minutes later. Thom and Hoyt searched for Deery while Sova administered field sobriety tests on Hennings and Ronholm. Hennings failed four field sobriety tests and was arrested approximately forty-six minutes after Thom first observed him. Shortly thereafter, Sova administered an Intoxilyzer test on Hennings at the Stutsman County Correctional Center, which produced a .168 BAC reading. Hennings was charged and found guilty of "Person Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Any Other Drugs or Substance Not to Operate Vehicle." Hennings argued on appeal that insufficient evidence existed to convict him because the State did not prove he was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hennings" on Justia Law

Christopher Williamson appealed a district court order affirming the Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges for two years. Officer Travis Martinson stopped Williamson after he drove over a fire hose at a fire scene. Martinson smelled alcohol in Williamson's vehicle and noticed Williamson had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech. Williamson refused field sobriety tests but consented to perform an onsite screening test. The onsite test estimated Williamson's blood alcohol content was greater than permitted for operating a vehicle and Martinson arrested Williamson. Martinson took Williamson to the Williams County Correctional Center and Sergeant Randy Haugenoe administered an Intoxilyzer 8000 chemical test. The Intoxilyzer reported Williamson had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.231 percent by weight. A hearing officer introduced the Intoxilyzer report at an administrative hearing. Williamson objected, alleging the statutory requirements were not met and the report was inadmissible for lack of foundation. The hearing officer concluded the test was fairly administered, the objection was overruled and the hearing officer's suspension of Williamson's driving privileges for two years was not in error. The district court affirmed the decision. Williamson appealed, arguing the district court erred by receiving evidence that was not adequately authenticated. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williamson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Clinton Walker appealed a criminal judgment entered upon his conditional plea of guilty for possession of marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols with intent to deliver. Walker pled guilty after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence and, on appeal, challenged that order. Walker was a passenger in a car driven my Tyler Asbach. Walker's arrest stemmed from the traffic stop of Asbach's car. The officer requested permission to search the vehicle, which Asbach did not give as he did not rent the vehicle. The officer then spoke to Walker, who indicated he was a third cousin to Asbach and they were returning to Indiana because Asbach's mother was undergoing surgery. The officer requested permission from Walker to search the vehicle, which he received. The length of the stop from beginning until consent was given was twelve minutes. No citation or warning had yet been issued. The officer did not tell Walker what he was searching for. Walker and Asbach moved to suppress the evidence and dismissal of the charges arguing the search and seizure of Walker's vehicle were illegal. After the suppression hearing the district court denied the motion, finding the officer was conducting duties related to the initial stop, the stop was reasonable, valid and voluntary consent was given by Walker, and the scope of consent was reasonable in its duration and was not limited to the interior of the vehicle. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Walker's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Walker" on Justia Law

A McLean County Sheriff's Deputy pulled defendant-appellant Robert Gackle over after the deputy observed Gackle speeding. The deputy noticed Gackle appeared intoxicated and asked Gackle for permission to search his vehicle; Gackle consented. During the search, the deputy found a crushed beer can. The deputy then requested Gackle submit to field sobriety tests; Gackle complied. After Gackle performed the tests, the deputy placed him under arrest and drove him to the Turtle Lake Hospital. At the hospital, the deputy read Gackle the implied consent advisory and requested he submit to a blood draw. Gackle consented, a nurse drew his blood, and the deputy delivered the blood sample to the North Dakota State Crime Laboratory. A forensic scientist at the crime laboratory performed a chemical test on Gackle's blood sample, and the test result was .21% alcohol by volume. A jury found Gackle guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He appealed, arguing the district court erred indenying his motion to suppress the test results. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Gackle" on Justia Law

Tyler Asbach appealed a judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to a drug-related offense, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On April 30, 2014, Asbach was stopped by Bismarck Police Officer Colt Bohn for making an improper left turn. Bohn testified approximately twelve minutes elapsed from the time of the stop until the time Walker gave consent to search the vehicle. Bohn stated Asbach had not been given a ticket or warning for the traffic violation before Walker consented to a search of the vehicle. The evening ended with Asbach being charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of tetrahydrocannabinols (edible THC). Asbach moved to suppress the evidence found in the search, arguing he was illegally seized after the purposes of the traffic stop were completed. The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding Bohn did not take any action outside the duties related to the traffic stop and Asbach was not illegally seized. The court also found the officer's search of Asbach's suitcase without first obtaining his consent was illegal, but under the inevitable discovery doctrine, the contraband discovered in Asbach's suitcase was admissible because the suitcase would have been searched after marijuana was discovered in passenger Clinton Walker's bag. After review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) Asbach was not illegally seized while the police officer was conducting duties related to the traffic stop; (2) the district court failed to make specific findings of fact as to whether the police officer acted in bad faith as required under the first part of the inevitable discovery test when searching beyond the scope of the consent to search; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that contraband found in Asbach's suitcase would have inevitably been discovered after Asbach's suitcase was searched without his consent, satisfying the second part of the inevitable discovery test. The Court therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Asbach" on Justia Law

Defendant Gino Acker drove Beau Johnson home after Acker and Johnson had been visiting bars in downtown Fargo. While driving to Johnson's residence, the two began to argue about Johnson smoking in Acker's vehicle. Acker alleged that when they arrived at Johnson's residence, Johnson exited the vehicle, walked around the front bumper, and began punching Acker through the driver-side window. Johnson denied punching Acker. Both parties agreed that Acker stabbed Johnson; Acker claimed the stabbing was in self-defense. A jury found Acker guilty of aggravated assault. He appealed the judgment, arguing the district court's admission of his prior criminal conviction for sexual assault was reversible error. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Acker" on Justia Law

Petitioner-appellant Rodney Chisholm was convicted by jury of murder in 2011. He appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief requesting a new trial, arguing the district court erred in denying his application. He claimed his counsel was ineffective and argued to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in failing to address all of the issues he raised post-conviction. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's decision to deny Chisholm post-conviction relief was supported by the evidence, and affirmed the district court's order. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

James Leno appealed a Department of Transportation decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Because the Supreme Court concluded the arresting officer's testimony sufficiently established he performed the required steps listed on the specimen submitter's checklist and Leno received a fair and impartial hearing, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Leno v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

A jury found Jason Hanson guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. He appealed the judgment and the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Jamestown v. Hanson" on Justia Law