Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-appellant Sean Kovalevich was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of corruption of a minor. The State alleged Kovalevich engaged in a sexual act with a minor female at a hotel in Grand Forks. At trial, a hotel employee testified about the hotel's reservation system and the hotel's records for Kovalevich's reservation at the hotel, including confirmation of reservations to stay at the hotel February 3-6, 2012, and August 13-15, 2012. The employee began testifying about the registration document for one of Kovalevich's confirmed reservations, but his lawyer objected and argued the registration documents had not been disclosed during discovery. The court limited the witness's testimony, and the registration documents were not introduced into evidence. During the trial, the State gave Kovalevich's lawyer copies of receipts for a hotel in Fargo, the Ramada Plaza and Suites. The receipts showed payment for a room reservation in Kovalevich's name for February 6-7, 2012, and August 15-16, 2012. The receipts were not introduced as evidence during the trial, and Kovalevich did not request a continuance to allow him to review the documents. Kovalevich was found guilty of all three counts. Kovalevich requested the court allow him to question the jurors about whether they considered the testimony about the Canad Inns registration documents in reaching a verdict. The court denied his request to question jurors at that time. The district court then denied his motion for a new trial, ruling the issues were not adequately raised, the evidence was properly admitted, and Kovalevich was not precluded from inquiring into the validity of the verdict. Finding no reversible error after review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Kovalevich" on Justia Law

In 2013, defendant-appellant Danny Birchfield drove into a ditch in Morton County. A highway patrol officer arrived at the scene, believed Birchfield was intoxicated, and asked Birchfield to perform field sobriety tests, which he failed. Birchfield took a preliminary breath test, which revealed a .254 percent alcohol concentration. The officer placed Birchfield under arrest and read him the implied consent advisory. Birchfield refused to consent to a chemical test. Birchfield appeals from a criminal judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to class B misdemeanor refusal to submit to a chemical test in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the charge on constitutional grounds. Because the Supreme Court concluded the statute did not violate Birchfield's rights under the Fourth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, section 8, it affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Birchfield" on Justia Law

In January 2013, while hunting coyotes in Logan County, defendant-appellant Penn Brandborg and a companion entered onto property owned by Joyce Haag and operated by her son, Keith Haag. To enter the property, Brandborg drove off of the main road onto an access approach road entering Joyce Haag's property. Joyce Haag owned the property on both sides of the access road. At the intersection of the main road and the access road, there was a no hunting sign posted on the north side of the access road. Anyone entering the property by the access road would have to drive right by the posted no hunting sign. Brandborg claimed that he believed the no hunting sign applied only to the land north of the access road, and he proceeded to drive into the field south of the access road to hunt. Brandborg was convicted after a jury found him guilty of hunting on posted land without permission. Brandborg has appealed, alleging the land was not properly posted and there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty. Finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed Brandborg's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Brandborg" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Derald Ross, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted on three counts of burglary. At the final dispositional conference before trial, Horn moved to dismiss the case arguing the State had violated a discovery rule by failing to provide the actual name, rather than simply the job title, of one of its witnesses. The district court denied the motion. At the close of the State's evidence, Horn moved for acquittal based on lack of evidence. The district court denied Horn's motion. After the defense rested, Horn renewed his motion for acquittal, and the district court again denied the motion. Horn appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not commit obvious error in allowing the records custodian to testify, Horn failed to establish a Brady violation, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. View "North Dakota v. Horn" on Justia Law

James Nagel appealed his conviction entered on a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Nagel argued all evidence obtained after the administration of his pre-arrest onsite screening test should have been suppressed because he did not voluntarily consent to the test. Because there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court's decision that Nagel voluntarily consented to the pre-arrest onsite screening test, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence. View "North Dakota v. Nagel" on Justia Law

Dale Yost appealed judgment entered on an Alford plea to five counts of gross sexual imposition. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the record did not establish Yost knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and his conduct did not rise to the functional equivalent of a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for resentencing with appointed counsel. View "North Dakota v. Yost" on Justia Law

In March 2013, the State charged Rapheal Murphy with delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, a class AA felony, and tampering with physical evidence, a class C felony. The information also stated Murphy had prior drug convictions in Minnesota state court. The State later amended the information to include a charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school. In November 2013, Murphy pleaded guilty to the charge of delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and the district court accepted his guilty plea. He appealed the sentence, arguing the district court failed to properly inform him of an additional mandatory eight-year consecutive sentence required under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23(3) before accepting his guilty plea at the March 2014 hearing. The Supreme Court concluded the district court misinterpreted the statute in determining the scope of its discretion in sentencing Murphy, so it vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Robert Schneider appealed the district court's order denying Schneider's motion to suppress evidence following a conditional guilty plea to possession of marijuana by a driver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Schneider argued the deputy's pre-arrest conduct went beyond a welfare check and was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, which the deputy lacked. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schneider" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Fetch appealed the judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reserving his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Fetch argued the results of his blood test should have been suppressed because he did not voluntarily consent to the blood draw. Because there was sufficient competent evidence to support the court's decision that Fetch voluntarily consented to the blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Fetch" on Justia Law

Darrius Patterson appealed after a jury found him guilty of delivery of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. Patterson argued the district court should have declared a mistrial because testimony given by a confidential informant and statements made by the State during opening and closing arguments affected his right to a fair trial amounting to obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Norh Dakota v. Patterson" on Justia Law