Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Danial Curtis was convicted of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information. At trial, a bank teller testified Curtis entered the bank where she worked producing a check for cashing. The teller noticed several "red flags" on the check; her manager testified to noticing the same red flags. The manager contacted the account holder to inquire if the check was authorized; the account holder testified she had thrown out any checks she had remaining once she closed the account. Representing himself, Curtis called a friend who testified Curtis was not attempting to cash the check, but was only attempting to see if the check was valid. Based on the evidence presented, the district court found beyond a reasonable doubt Curtis willfully presented the check to cash, and found Curtis guilty of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information "to obtain money without the authorization of consent of the holder of the account, and the value of the money exceeded $1,000." On appeal, Curtis argued there was insufficient information presented to support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Curtis' conviction. View "North Dakota v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Carolyn Nelson appealed her conviction from a bench trial for the crime of accomplice to theft. Nelson was the president of the Oberon School Board. Laura Schnieber-Bruns and her business, Victim Survivor the Voice, LLC, were engaged to perform services for the school. The exact nature of the services was disputed, but an agreement signed by Nelson and Schnieber-Bruns described the work as “investigate, research, compile and deliver ongoing actions request of the Oberon School Board.” The agreement specified a “set-up fee” of $7,500, an “on-going management” fee of $7,500, and a $200 hourly rate for “services outside the scope of this Agreement.” Schnieber-Bruns was later charged with class A felony theft for taking more than $150,000 from the Oberon School “through a deceptive scheme pursuant to” the agreement. She pleaded guilty by an Alford plea. Nelson challenged her conviction as an accomplice. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court declined to address issues Nelson did not raise at the district court or brief on appeal under the obvious error standard of review. View "North Dakota v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Susan Coons appealed a criminal judgment finding her guilty of forgery. During jury selection, the district court informed the jury panel that the potential jurors had the option to speak with the court “in private” in a separate room if they had information to share that might be embarrassing or intrusive. After general questioning of the panel, the court, Coons, the attorneys for both Coons and the State, and an officer met in a private room and conducted individual questioning of three prospective jurors on the record. Coons argued on appeal that this procedure for individual questioning constituted a trial closure and violated her right to public trial. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s findings were sufficient to show an overriding interest but that the court’s limited consideration of the scope of closure and failure to consider alternatives to closure were erroneous. "Although the court identified one interest that may support closure, it did not narrowly tailor to that interest." The Court concluded this error was obvious error and the judgment was reversed. View "North Dakota v. Coons" on Justia Law

Melinda Strom appealed an amended criminal judgment and order for restitution. Strom pled guilty to misapplication of entrusted property in excess of $50,000 in violation of N.D.C.C. 12.1-23-07(1). Strom was sentenced to five years, all suspended for three years of supervised probation. Strom argued the district court abused its discretion in awarding restitution because it did not consider her ability to pay as required by N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-08(1). The North Dakota declared the statute unconstitutional in part and affirmed the restitution order and judgment. The Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in fixing the amount of restitution without regard to the defendant's ability to pay. "To clearly state the scope of this decision, it is necessary to articulate what we do not decide here. In this matter, we examine only an award of restitution and not a contempt hearing or probation revocation for non-payment, and thus we limit consideration of ability to pay only in the context of setting the total amount of restitution. We do not completely preclude consideration of ability to pay. There may be times when such consideration may be appropriate, i.e., when determining the time or manner of payment or whether a defendant's failure to pay is willful." View "North Dakota v. Strom" on Justia Law

Stephan Podrygula and Psychological Services, P.C. (collectively "Podrygula") appealed a district court order dismissing their complaint against Angela and William Bray for fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Angela Bray was employed by Podrygula from October 2000 to September 2006. In the complaint, Podrygula alleged Angela Bray fraudulently diverted money from the business, and William Bray was aware of this and assisted in defrauding and concealing those activities. Stephan Podrygula reported his suspicions of Angela Bray's theft to law enforcement. Formal charges were brought against her in August 2007, she was convicted of theft, and was sentenced to prison. In addition, she was ordered to pay $63,197 in restitution which has since been paid in full. The Brays filed a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing Podrygula failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the suit was untimely, and the complaint's fraud allegations were not pleaded with particularity. Podrygula alleged that since Angela Bray's sentencing in September 2008, it was discovered she had been stealing from as far back as 2003, rather than from 2005. In addition, Podrygula alleged: (1) in early December 2007, information was received from Stephan Podrygula's bank about thefts that had not been included in the forensic accounting report used at the criminal trial; in 2008 Angela Bray had been impersonating Stephan Podrygula to his bank and other businesses; and (3) information was received in January 2008 indicating William Bray had been double and triple reimbursed for handyman work he had performed for them. After a hearing on the motion, the district court determined October 4, 2006 was the discovery date for purposes of the statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations ran six years later. After determining the statute of limitations had run, the district court granted the Brays' motion to dismiss and filed an order of dismissal without prejudice. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the district court did not err in determining the statute of limitations had run. View "Podrygula v. Bray" on Justia Law

Defendant Charles Blunt appealed a district court order that denied his motion for a new trial. He argued the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the State violated procedural discovery rules. Defendant was the Executive Director of Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") from 2004 to 2007. The State Auditor's Office conducted a performance review of WSI in 2006, and the Auditor's report questioned the use of public funds at WSI. As a result of the Auditor's report, Defendant was charged with two counts of misapplication of entrusted property in violation of state law. State rules of procedure hold that if the State fails to disclose certain discoverable information to a criminal defendant, the trial court has discretion in applying a remedy when a violation of the rule has been shown. Without a showing of an abuse of the court's discretion, the issue is not appealable. Although the Supreme Court concluded the State likely violated the discovery rules, a careful review of the entire record reflected that the information contained in the undisclosed documents was contained in other documents provided to Defendant. Furthermore, the Court concluded that Defendant did not establish he was prejudiced by the violations. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial.