Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Gary Glaser was charged with indecent exposure after he allegedly pulled up to a stranger walking on a sidewalk, stopped his vehicle, and exposed himself (his genitals) to the victim. Glaser initially pled not guilty. After being provided a court-appointed attorney, he entered a guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing, Glaser argued he should not have to register as a sex offender because he had no prior criminal history as a sex offender, he did not exhibit any mental abnormality or predatory conduct, and the victim was not a minor. The State argued his conduct met the statutory definition of predatory conduct because it was directed at a stranger. The district court agreed with the State and determined Glaser was required to register. Glaser also received a sentence of one year, with nine months suspended, and he was placed on probation for two years. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Glaser to register as a sex offender. View "North Dakota v. Glaser" on Justia Law

Gayne Gasal appealed a district court criminal judgment after a jury convicted him of hunting without a license, and the district court's order denying his motions to suppress evidence obtained after the issuance of a search warrant of his farmstead for two hunting rifles. Gasal also sought suppression of statements he made during conversations with the game warden. Gasal argued the search warrant was invalid, and that he should have been given his Miranda rights prior to speaking with the game warden. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Gasal" on Justia Law

Jesse Eckroth appealed a district court judgment that sentenced him on his third offense of driving under the influence ("DUI"), a class A misdemeanor. Eckroth argued the district court order sentencing him for his third DUI conviction should have been remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal because he was convicted using invalid prior convictions. He also argued the district court erred in denying him credit for time served in custody as a result of multiple violations of the 24/7 sobriety program. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Eckroth" on Justia Law

On November 23, 2013, while patrolling on an alleged section line in a state vehicle, a state game warden followed hunters northwest of Jamestown and struck a large rock, damaging the vehicle. After observing the accident, the hunters approached the warden, and based on their conversation, the warden learned defendant Donald Bear had allegedly put the rock on the trail. While the vehicle was being towed from the scene, the warden alerted law enforcement. After an investigation, Bear was charged with violating N.D.C.C. 24-06-28 for obstructing a section line because he allegedly placed the rock in question on a section line. At the bench trial, Deputy Metzger, who conducted the investigation, testified that Bear told him he put the rock there to keep somebody from driving in his field. Bear also testified and denied making that statement. Bear admitted he placed the rock there so that if he decided to "break up" the section line, he would not have to farm around a rock pile. On appeal, Bear argued the district court erred in not granting his acquittal motion because the evidence did not support the conviction, his actions did not violate the statute, the matter should have been tried civilly, and there were public policy concerns if his conviction was affirmed. Because there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bear" on Justia Law

Based on information from a confidential informant, the Ward County Narcotics Task Force was investigating a suspect involved in selling and distributing methamphetamine. While accompanying the suspect during several drug transactions, the informant observed a Cadillac Escalade and a motorcycle with Colorado license plates at drug purchase and distribution locations. The officers followed the Cadillac to defendant Jamie Apland's residence and found the motorcycle parked out front. Relying on this information, as well as having discovered narcotics, paraphernalia, and a stolen weapon during a previous search of another location, officers arranged a "trash pull" at Apland's residence. During the trash search, officers found a white substance which tested positive for methamphetamine and an electronic scale disguised as a computer mouse commonly used in the trafficking of illegal narcotics. They also found mail addressed to Jamie Apland, Charisse Heim, and Charles Rogers III. Using this information, a search warrant was requested and received for Apland's residence. The affidavit in support of the search warrant did not indicate where the trash was located on the premises prior to the "trash pull." During execution of the search warrant, narcotics and related paraphernalia were found, and Apland was arrested. Apland moved to suppress the evidence arguing the warrant affidavit did not indicate where the trash was found on the property, and the narcotics and paraphernalia found were products of an illegal search. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Apland's motion to suppress evidence and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Apland" on Justia Law

Stacy Peltier appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Peltier pled guilty to eighteen burglary counts stemming from burglaries in eight North Dakota counties. The trial court accepted his pleas and sentenced him to five years for each count with the time to run concurrently. He did not file a direct appeal on that criminal case, and after serving his sentence, he was released in November 1996. He had since been convicted of federal crimes, and at the time of this appeal, was incarcerated. Peltier claimed his federal sentence was enhanced due to his prior state convictions. In January 2013, seeking to mitigate the federal sentencing enhancements, Peltier filed a post-conviction relief petition, arguing his state conviction was obtained in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 were violated, he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the trial court failed to properly combine his cases causing him to be prejudiced. The district court summarily denied his petition. Because Peltier failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims and the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that withdrawing Peltier's pleas was not necessary to correct a manifest injustice, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Peltier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Steve Beylund appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation decision to suspend his driving privileges for two years. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Beylund voluntarily consented to the chemical blood test administered by the police officer, and the criminal refusal statute did not violate Beylund's state or federal constitutional rights. The Court declined to address Beylund's argument regarding the legality of the stop because the issue was not sufficiently articulated in Beylund's appeal. View "Beylund v. Levi" on Justia Law

In 1999, Robert L. Johnson was charged with one count of simple assault and two counts of contact by bodily fluid or excrement. Johnson was tried and convicted of all three counts. Because of improper jury instructions, Johnson's convictions were reversed and remanded. He was convicted again of all three counts in 2002. Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court, but later withdrew his appeal after accepting a plea bargain agreement pertaining to the disposition of the appealed charges. The Supreme Court dismissed Johnson's appeal in 2003. In 2014, Johnson applied for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In support of his application, Johnson submitted a letter dated July 17, 2013, from Johnson's 2002 trial attorney acknowledging he made some mistakes regarding his representation of Johnson. The State moved to dismiss on the grounds that the time for filing a post-conviction relief application had expired. The district court dismissed Johnson's application as barred by the two-year statute of limitations for post-conviction relief applications. Johnson appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Johnson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A Beulah police officer observed Jesse Keller driving with an obstructed license plate. Keller turned his vehicle into a parking lot and stopped. The officer parked next to Keller's vehicle and, when Keller exited the vehicle, the officer made contact with him. The officer smelled an odor of alcohol coming from Keller and noticed Keller's speech was slurred. Keller agreed to take field sobriety tests and failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Keller refused further field sobriety testing. Although Keller agreed to take an onsite screening test, he failed to provide an adequate breath sample. The officer arrested Keller for driving under the influence and transported him to the hospital. The alcohol analytical report of Keller's blood sample indicated a 0.210 alcohol concentration. The officer sent the alcohol analytical report to the director of the Department of Transportation, along with other required documents. However, the officer testified he could not remember whether he had received the drug analytical report of the blood sample at the time he submitted the other documents to the director. The officer was not aware if anyone else had forwarded the drug analytical report to the director. Keller appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for 180 days for driving under the influence. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the Department did not lose authority to suspend Keller's privileges when the police officer did not forward the results of the drug analytical report of Keller's blood sample to the Department. View "Keller v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

In November 2012, defendant-appellant Juan Galvez was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition, both class A felonies, for engaging in sexual acts with two minor girls. According to the complaint, the girls were under the age of fifteen, while Galvez was over the age of eighteen but under the age of twenty-two, when the acts occurred. Defendant argued on appeal that the State used improper gender-based peremptory challenges in jury selection and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Galvez" on Justia Law