Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Rebecca Larson appealed after she conditionally pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Brian Kuruc appealed a criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, tampering with physical evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia after also entering a conditional guilty plea. Both Larson and Kuruc appealed their convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Larson and Kuruc's motions to suppress evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in excluding Larson and Kuruc's Washington medical marijuana prescriptions as a defense to the crimes of possession and possession with intent to deliver. View "North Dakota v. Kuruc" on Justia Law

Rodney Simeon Scheett, Jr., appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He challenged the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence used against him. Because the search of Scheett's vehicle was justified under the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.View "North Dakota v. Scheett" on Justia Law

John Murphy appeaed a judgment that summarily dismissed his application for postconviction relief. Murphy argued that he should have received postconviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the factual basis upon which he pled guilty was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Finding no genuine issue of material fact existed, and that the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Murphy's application for postconviction relief.View "Murphy v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Todd Zeller appealed his conviction after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture or deliver, and possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver. Upon review of Zeller's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the search warrant's provision providing for a nighttime search was not supported by probable cause. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Zeller's motion to suppress, and to allow Zeller to withdraw his guilty pleas.View "North Dakota v. Zeller" on Justia Law

Randy Holkesvig appealed district court orders denying him leave of court to file post-judgment motions, denying his motion to vacate or void judgment, and ordering the Grand Forks County Clerk of Court not to accept any further pleadings of any kind from him in this case, other than a notice of appeal. After Holkesvig pleaded guilty to stalking in 2008, Holkesvig engaged in extensive litigation against various parties, including unsuccessfully suing the complaining witness, two prosecutors, and a deputy sheriff, and alleging wrongdoing in the criminal investigation and prosecution. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Holkesvig v. Grove" on Justia Law

On October 13, 2010, Fargo law enforcement officers conducted a controlled drug buy in which they had a confidential informant arrange to buy methamphetamine from M.B., an unwitting go-between. M.B. was given $500 for the purchase. Officers on the scene saw her enter a black Nissan. M.B. returned to the detective's vehicle with the methamphetamine about seven minutes later. Another officer at the scene radioed his observations to other officers in the surveillance team and described the black Nissan. The black Nissan was ultimately pulled over on a traffic violation. That stop resulted in defendant Arthur Ostby being arrested. Defendant appealed after a jury convicted him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court concluded, after review of defendant's arguments on appeal, the district court did not err in denying defendant's suppression motion. Furthermore, defendant's due process rights were not violated by the State's failure to preserve evidence, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. View "North Dakota v. Ostby" on Justia Law

Christopher Vandermeer appealed after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition with a person less than fifteen years old. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify concerning her age and date of birth over Vandermeer's foundation and hearsay objections. View "North Dakota v. Vandermeer" on Justia Law

Ricky James Rodriguez appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Rodriguez's argument because the Court concluded the issue on appeal was moot.View "Rodriguez v. N.D. State Penitentiary" on Justia Law

Joseph Daniel Potratz appeals the district court's judgment affirming the administrative hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges. A Burleigh County Deputy Sheriff arrested Potratz for driving under the influence ("DUI"). The administrative hearing officer concluded the deputy had reasonable grounds to believe Potratz had been driving under the influence and Potratz was properly tested after his arrest to determine his alcohol concentration within two hours of driving. Potratz appealed the hearing officer's decision. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Potratz v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Mark Osier appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 1994, Osier was charged with multiple counts of gross sexual imposition ("GSI") involving a minor under the age of 15 for alleged incidents involving his daughter, S.O. The jury in Osier's first trial deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial. For his second jury trial Osier hired an out-of-state attorney. The jury convicted Osier of six counts of GSI. The Supreme Court reversed Osier's conviction on appeal, holding that the district court had erroneously admitted testimony from Osier's niece that Osier had sexually molested her on several occasions when she was eight or nine years old. Osier was subsequently tried a third time. The jury found Osier not guilty on one count of GSI but guilty on the remaining five counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment on appeal, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the out-of-state attorney had failed to comply with the rape shield statute; that the evidence of additional sexual conduct was not sufficient to explain S.O.'s physical condition; and that the impeachment value of the additional evidence was merely cumulative to abundant other evidence. In 2012, Osier filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his third trial. Osier argued the out-of-state attorney's failure to comply with the rape shield statute, resulting in inadmissibility of the evidence of additional sexual acts between S.O. and her boyfriend, fell below the objective standard of reasonable representation and resulted in prejudice to Osier. After a hearing, the district court determined that Osier failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by the attorney's alleged deficient performance and that the issue was barred by res judicata because the Supreme Court had earlier determined that Osier had failed to demonstrate that any of the proffered rape shield evidence was relevant. The court accordingly denied the application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed, concluding Osier failed to establish he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance.View "Osier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law