Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Shawn Knudson, individually and as a partner of Tri-K Farms, appealed and Randy Kyllo, individually and as a partner of Tri-K Farms, cross-appealed a judgment ordering Knudson to pay Kyllo $24,703.97 after a bench trial in an action involving the operation and dissolution of their farming partnership, Tri-K Farms. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's findings of fact for the dissolution of the partnership were not clearly erroneous, but the court failed to make appropriate findings on Kyllo's claim for usurpation of a partnership opportunity. The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Knudson v. Kyllo" on Justia Law

John Miller and J.D. Miller Farming Association (collectively "Miller") appealed an order that affirmed the Walsh County Water Resource District's decision requiring Miller to remove unpermitted dikes from his property located in Forest River Township. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Miller failed to establish that the District acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably, that there was not substantial evidence to support its decision, or that the District was estopped from requiring removal of the dikes. View "Miller v. Walsh County Water Resource District" on Justia Law

Defendant Kyle T. Mackey appealed a trial court's order for amended judgment and amended judgment denying and dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In April 2010, Defendant pled guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition ("GSI") and another count of GSI was diverted for the duration of Defendant's imprisonment and probation. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty years in prison. The court ordered Defendant to serve eight years and suspended the remaining twenty-two years for five years. Defendant appealed. In early 2011, while the appeal was pending, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the sentence did not conform to the plea agreement and alleging the sentence was illegal. The trial court amended Defendant's sentence, reducing it to fifteen years, and Defendant filed a second appeal of the court's order. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order amending his sentence and denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea; he claimed he lacked an understanding of the law in relation to the facts of his case and his plea was not voluntary. The trial court dismissed Defendant's application. Defendant unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, and for the first time, alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Between the testimony of the facts underlying Defendant's GSI offense during the sentencing hearing and the factual allegations contained in the criminal information, a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea was established. Defendant's remaining arguments were not meritorious, and the Supreme Court declined to address them on appeal. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment dismissing Defendant's application for post-conviction relief. View "Mackey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Travis Trainor Lutz appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to the charge of driving under the influence. In September 2011, Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and submitted to a blood draw, which was conducted by a nurse. The State notified Defendant of its intent to introduce an analytical report at trial under N.D.R.Ev. 707. Defendant objected and demanded the State produce the arresting officer, the nurse who drew his blood sample, the lab analysts, including Stephanie Kleinjan, who conducted the chemical test, and Lisa Hentges, who prepared the volatiles solution used during the chemical test, and any evidence custodians or mail clerks involved in the matter. Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the analytical report without the requested witnesses' presence at trial. The State opposed Defendant's motion, arguing it was in compliance with N.D.R.Ev. 707 because it planned to call Kleinjan and the arresting officer at trial. The district court held a hearing on the matter and denied Defendant's motion in limine. Defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court's decision on his motion in limine. Defendant and the State filed a stipulation for the conditional plea, and the district court entered a criminal judgment. Rule 707, N.D.R.Ev., when read with N.D.C.C. 39-20-07, requires the State to produce at trial the nurse who drew Defendant's blood sample. The rule does not require the State to produce the individual who prepared the volatiles solution, the mail carriers, or the evidence custodians. Because the Supreme Court concluded the State was required to produce at trial the nurse who drew Defendant's blood, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Lutz" on Justia Law

Defendant Sarah Pavlicek appealed a criminal judgment entered against her after a jury found her guilty of abuse or neglect of a child. Defendant lived with her boyfriend, their son, Defendant's daughter from a previous relationship, and L.B., the boyfriend's daughter from a previous relationship. In October 2010, a teacher at L.B.'s school received a phone call from Defendant regarding a mark on L.B.'s face. When L.B. arrived at school, the teacher was suspicious of the mark on L.B.'s face and also found bruises on L.B.'s back. The teacher followed school reporting procedures, and Burleigh County Social Services became involved. The teacher testified that when Defendant arrived at the school to discuss L.B.'s injuries with the staff, she did not seem concerned about L.B. On appeal, Defendant argued the guilty verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and claims the jury rendered legally inconsistent verdicts. Defendant also contended the court erred by "refus[ing] to give a proper jury instruction on parental discipline." Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Defendant's conviction was supported by competent evidence, the jury verdicts were not legally inconsistent, and the court did not err in denying Defendant's requested jury instruction. View "North Dakota v. Pavlicek" on Justia Law

Defendant Anthony Perales appealed an amended criminal judgment that revoked his probation and imposed a sentence of fourteen years' incarceration followed by five years supervised probation. Defendant argued on appeal that the sentence was illegal because the district court lacked authority to impose probation and that fourteen years' incarceration was cruel and unusual punishment. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court concluded that the district court erred by ordering Defendant to serve additional probation following his release. View "North Dakota v. Perales" on Justia Law

The State of North Dakota, through Adams County State's Attorney Aaron Roseland, petitioned for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to withdraw its pretrial order holding N.D.R.Ev. 707 required the State to produce at trial the person who drew Gwen Bohmbach's blood on the charge of driving under the influence. Bohmbach was arrested for driving under the influence and submitted to a blood draw, which was conducted by a nurse. The State notified Bohmbach that it intended to introduce the analytical report at trial. Bohmbach sent the State a subpoena to serve on the nurse who drew her blood. The State moved to quash the subpoena, arguing N.D.R.Ev. 707 did not require it to produce the nurse who drew Bohmbach's blood because the nurse had no knowledge of the analytical report. The district court, after a hearing on the motion, concluded the State was required to produce the nurse at trial. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded this was an appropriate case in which to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. Because the Court held N.D.R.Ev. 707, when construed with N.D.C.C. 39-20-07, requires the State to produce at trial the individual who drew Bohmbach's blood, the Court denied the State's petition. View "North Dakota, ex rel. Roseland v. Herauf" on Justia Law

D&P Terminal, Inc., and Potter Enterprises appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the decision of the Board of City Commissioners of Fargo in approving special assessments against their property. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the Fargo Special Assessment Commission did not use an inappropriate method to calculate the benefits to property included in the improvement district. View "D&P Terminal v. City of Fargo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Meier appealed a judgment dismissing his appeal from an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ affirmed a decision by the Department of Human Services to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Plaintiff did not properly perfect his appeal because he failed to serve the notice of appeal and specifications of error on Human Resource Management Services. View "Meier v. N.D. Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law

Defendant Julie Castro appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice her interstate custody proceeding against Crescencio Castro for custody of the parties' minor child. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court misapplied the law for exercising jurisdiction for an interstate custody proceeding, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Castro v. Castro" on Justia Law