Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ryan Zueger and William Nickel appealed their convictions after the district court denied their motions to suppress evidence and a jury found them guilty of conspiracy to deliver controlled synthetic cannabinoids. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying the motions to suppress, and reversed the convictions. View "North Dakota v. Nickel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant John Schmitt appealed the dismissal of his claims against MeritCare Health System for defamation, tortious interference with a prospective business advantage, and violation of state antitrust law. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiff's allegations lacked merit, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims. View "Schmitt v. MeritCare Health System" on Justia Law

Petitioner Glen YellowBird appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the North Dakota Department of Transportation's revocation of his driving privileges for one year. Because the Supreme Court concluded the plain language of N.D.C.C. 39-20-14 did not require the officer requesting the on-site screening test to be certified to administer the test, it affirmed the district court judgment affirming the Department's revocation of YellowBird's driving privileges. View "Yellowbird v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Wilson was charged with four counts of issuing a check with insufficient funds or credit in 2010. He requested court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied, finding he was not indigent. A trial was set in early 2011, but Wilson later requested a change of plea, and the trial was rescheduled. Before the jury trial began, Wilson told the court he had tried to retain an attorney three weeks earlier, calling "five or six of them," but each declined. Wilson provided no evidence other than his statement that he had made efforts to retain an attorney. A jury found Wilson guilty of all counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds. The district court sentenced him to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment with two years suspended and two consecutive terms of 30 days in jail with 20 days suspended and required he pay restitution. Wilson was not advised of his right to appeal at the time of sentencing. Wilson appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal as untimely. Petitioning pro se, Wilson petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging he should have been appointed counsel. Wilson again requested court-appointed counsel, which this time the district court granted. Through his court-appointed counsel, Wilson filed a supplement to his application, alleging the district court erred in denying him counsel at all stages of the proceeding in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also argued that the district court had a duty to inform him of his right to appeal and his sentence was cruel and unusual. The district court denied Wilson's application for post-conviction relief. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Wilson argued he was prejudiced because the trial court failed to notify him of his right to appeal and the district court erred in concluding he waived his right to counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court's finding that Wilson waived his right to counsel was supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Wilson's failure to secure counsel after being advised of the right and given a reasonable opportunity to do so constituted his waiver of that right. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Wilson's request for court-appointed counsel. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying Wilson's application for post-conviction relief. View "Wilson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Matthew Swearingen appealed a district court order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. Concluding the district court provided inadequate findings of fact and should have granted Swearingen's request for a transcript of the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Swearingen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Nick Webster appealed his conviction after he conditionally pled guilty to burglary, gross sexual imposition, and interfering with a telephone during an emergency call. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in determining Webster received sufficient Miranda warnings and waived his Miranda rights, it reversed the judgment and remanded to allow Webster to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Webster" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Wacht was convicted of murder after a jury found him guilty for the 2011 death of Kurt Johnson. Wacht argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. Finding the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed Wacht's murder conviction. View "North Dakota v. Wacht" on Justia Law

Defendant Lindsay Severinson appeals a district court judgment convicting her of driving under the influence after entering a conditional guilty plea. Severinson argued on appeal the district court erred by admitting an analytical report containing the results of her blood test because the State could not produce the forensic scientist who peer reviewed the analytical report. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Severinson" on Justia Law

Defendant Julian Keller appealed a district court judgment after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence. Concluding the district court properly admitted Keller's chemical blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Keller" on Justia Law

In 2012, Charles Murphy, Sr. and Charles Murphy, Jr. informed law enforcement they had received threatening phone calls from Defendant Nelson Gipp. In the call to Murphy Sr., Gipp accused him and two other people of being child molesters and threatened to kill him. In the call to Murphy Jr., Gipp told him Murphy Sr. was a child molester and that Gipp was going to kill Murphy Sr. Gipp was interviewed by an FBI agent, and he admitted to making the phone calls. During the interview, Gipp alleged that Murphy Sr. had sexually abused him as a child. Gipp was charged with terrorizing. Gipp informed the State that he intended to introduce evidence that Murphy Sr. sexually abused him in the past. The State moved in limine to exclude any evidence of past sexual abuse, and Gipp resisted the motion. The trial court held no hearing on the motion. The district court then granted the motion in limine. Gipp moved to reconsider, arguing N.D.R.Ev. 106 required the statement be entered in its entirety so it could not be taken out of context. The district court did not rule on the motion to reconsider. Gipp entered a conditional guilty plea to the amended charge of menacing. Upon review, the Suprme e Court found no error with the district court's decision and affirmed Gipp's conviction of menacing. View "North Dakota v. Gipp" on Justia Law