Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Dubois, Jr., appealed a criminal judgment entered after the district court revoked his probation and resentenced him to five years’ incarceration. In 2017, Dubois plead guilty to two counts of criminal trespass and refusal to halt. The first criminal trespass count was a class C felony for which he was sentenced to a term of eighteen months’ commitment to the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, first to serve 90 days with the balance suspended for eighteen months of supervised probation, to be served concurrently with the other two counts. In January 2019, a probation officer petitioned to revoke Dubois’ probation, alleging he committed three new criminal offenses, and a fourth allegation that was later dismissed. Dubois was convicted of each of the three offenses. Dubois admitted the allegations at the revocation hearing and asked to be placed back on probation. The district court rejected that request and asked for an alternative recommendation from Dubois. Dubois then argued for a sentence of time already served. The court revoked his probation and resentenced him to five years’ incarceration with credit for time previously served. Dubois argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and the sentence was illegal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Dubois" on Justia Law

Allan Pailing appealed a district court order denying his motion for mistrial and dismissal of charges. Pailing was charged with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. During closing arguments he objected to an anecdotal story the State used, and argued the State impliedly commented on Pailing’s failure to testify. The district court did not immediately rule on the objection and directed the parties to finish closing arguments. Pailing briefed the objection, which the district court ultimately overruled and denied Pailing’s motion for mistrial and dismissal of charges. Pailing argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court that the State’s explanation of “circumstantial evidence” through a personal narrative indirectly and improperly commented on his silence and violated his due process rights. He alternatively argued the district court abused its discretion by permitting the State to address Pailing’s credibility, absent his testimony, which prejudiced Pailing. The Supreme Court concluded the correct standard of review whether Pailing’s due process rights were violated was de novo, and that the prosecutor’s anecdotal story did not violate Pailing’s constitutional rights. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Pailing’s objection and denying the motion for mistrial. View "North Dakota v. Pailing" on Justia Law

Karen Wieland appeals from a judgment allowing the city of Fargo to take her property for flood mitigation purposes and awarding her $939,044.32 in just compensation, attorney fees, costs, and statutory expenses. Because the district court did not misapply the law in concluding the taking of Wieland’s property was necessary for a public use, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirm the judgment. View "City of Fargo v. Wieland" on Justia Law

Continental Resources, Inc. appealed a district court judgment dismissing its declaratory judgment action against the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality (“Department”). Continental’s action for declaratory judgment requested the district court find “that if an approved control device is installed and operating at an oil and gas production facility, the mere presence of an emission from a closed tank hatch or control device does not, in and of itself, establish a violation of N.D. Admin. Code 33-15-07-2(1).” The district court dismissed Continental’s declaratory judgment action after finding the Environmental Protection Agency was an indispensable party, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the matter was not ripe for judicial review. While this appeal was pending, the Department moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment dismissing Continental’s request for declaratory judgment as not ripe for judicial review. View "Continental Resources v. N.D. Dept. of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law

Paul and Raina Saastad were married in 2006 and had two children together. In April 2017, Raina filed for divorce. The issues of residential and decisionmaking responsibility for the parties’ children were tried to the district court over two days in May 2018. In July 2018, the parties stipulated on the record to an agreement on financial issues. As part of the agreement, the parties agreed to pay their own attorney’s fees. The court granted the parties equal decisionmaking responsibility regarding the children, but granted Raina primary residential responsibility, noting joint residential responsibility would not be in the best interests of the children given the parties’ unwillingness to communicate or cooperate. Paul moved for a new trial, seeking to admit newly discovered evidence. He also moved for relief from judgment, alleging several errors in the district court’s judgment. Raina opposed the motions, and in her response requested attorney’s fees for the additional legal work related to the post-judgment motions. The district court denied the motion for a new trial, granted the motion for relief from judgment in part, and denied Raina's request for attorney’s fees. Paul appealed and Raina cross-appealed the trial court's orders, but finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Saastad v. Saastad" on Justia Law

George Job appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his 2008 guilty plea to the charge of aggravated assault. Job argued the district court abused its discretion by determining a manifest injustice did not result from a 2010 resentencing following the revocation of his probation. He contended the resentencing was illegal and transformed his original non-deportable offense into a deportable offense. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Job" on Justia Law

Jeremy Maines appeals from the district court’s amended criminal judgments and finding he is a habitual offender. In April 2017, Maines was charged with robbery and theft of property. The State later charged Maines with four counts of terrorizing. The district court found Maines was a habitual offender because prior convictions in Washington state were felonies that occurred while he was an adult. The court sentenced Maines to 20 years with 8 years suspended for 5 years for the robbery charge. Maines was sentenced to 5 years on each count of the terrorizing charges, to run concurrently with each other and the previous sentence. On appeal, Maines argued the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him as a habitual offender. Specifically, he claimed his prior convictions were misdemeanors under North Dakota law and did not apply under the habitual offender statute. The North Dakota Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Maines" on Justia Law

Becky Jo Krump-Wootton appealed a district court order denying her request to change the school location for the parties’ children, and denying her request to modify the parties’ parenting time. Daniel Krump cross-appealed the denial of his request for modification of primary responsibility. The parties were divorced in 2012. Becky was awarded primary residential responsibility of the parties’ two children and Daniel was allocated parenting time with the children. The judgment required the parties to agree on the children’s education; the children attended school in Hankinson, North Dakota. Becky remarried and her husband lived in Lisbon, North Dakota, about 65 miles from Hankinson. Believing Becky would remove the children from school in Hankinson and enroll them in school in Lisbon, Daniel filed a motion seeking to enforce the provision of the judgment requiring the parties to agree on the children’s education to prevent Becky from enrolling the children in Lisbon. Daniel also sought modification of primary residential responsibility. Becky opposed the modification of primary residential responsibility and filed a motion seeking to modify Daniel's parenting time to accommodate enrolling the children in school in Lisbon. The court found a prima facie case for modification of primary residential responsibility. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying Becky's motion to modify parenting time, Daniel's motion to modify primary residential responsibility, and its amendment of the judgment providing the children would attend school in Hankinson. View "Krump-Wooton v. Krump" on Justia Law

Chad Legare appealed a criminal judgment entered after his guilty plea to attempted murder. Prior to his guilty plea, Legare moved for an order allowing him to present an affirmative defense of justification or excuse. The court denied the motion, stating it would not allow a special jury instruction regarding defense of others when no evidence or anticipated evidence showed there was imminent danger to the woman Legare argued he was defending. Legare pleaded guilty to attempted murder under an Alford plea. Legare argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was violated and the trial court erred by not allowing him to present his defense of justification or excuse. Legare requested the conviction be vacated and the order denying his motion in limine reversed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. View "North Dakota v. Legare" on Justia Law

John Hughes appeals from a district court order dismissing his negligence action. In 2012, Olheiser Masonry employee Harley Rapp, and Hughes collided in a forklift and motor vehicle accident. Rapp was driving a forklift and Hughes was driving a pickup truck. Hughes filed a complaint with the district court on May 22, 2018, alleging injuries as a result of the negligence of Rapp, Curt Olheiser, and Olheiser Masonry. Hughes mailed his complaint and summons to the Stark County Sheriff’s Department the same day, requesting the documents be served on the defendants. The Stark County sheriff’s department did not receive the documents until May 31, 2018. Olheiser, Olheiser Masonry, and Rapp were served by the sheriff’s department on June 1 and 2, 2018. On October 11, 2018, Olheiser, Olheiser Masonry, and Rapp filed a motion to dismiss arguing the action was not commenced until after the statute of limitations expired. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and concluded the action was not commenced until after the statute of limitations expired because the Stark County sheriff’s department did not receive the summons until May 31, 2018. Hughes appealed, arguing mailing of a summons and complaint to the sheriff’s department should have been treated as delivery for purposes of commencing his civil action. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Hughes v. Olheiser Masonry, et al." on Justia Law