Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In March 2024, the State charged Leon Helland with four counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, a class C felony, under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b). The charges were based on Helland's 2021 conviction for menacing, during which he allegedly used or possessed a firearm. At the preliminary hearing, the arresting officer testified that Helland had firearms in his possession and that his prior menacing conviction involved a firearm. However, on cross-examination, the officer admitted she did not review the charging document or know if Helland had completed a deferred imposition of sentence.The District Court of Burleigh County dismissed the charges, finding the State did not show probable cause that Helland's menacing conviction involved the use of a firearm. The court took judicial notice of the plea agreement and amended information from the menacing case, which did not mention a firearm. The court concluded that the State needed to prove the conviction involved a firearm, not just provide supplemental testimony.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of the court records from the menacing case. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court misinterpreted N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b). The statute does not require the use or possession of a firearm to be an element of the predicate offense, only that the offense was committed while using or possessing a firearm. The Supreme Court concluded that the State had shown probable cause based on the officer's testimony.Despite this, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal because Helland's menacing conviction had been set aside and dismissed over a year before the firearm charges, meaning it could not serve as a predicate offense under N.D.C.C. § 62.1-02-01(1)(b). View "State v. Helland" on Justia Law

Casey Hoff applied for a building permit from the City of Burlington to add an addition to his home, which is located within the city's floodplain. Hoff, an experienced contractor, provided appraisals and plans to the city officials, who approved the permit based on the information provided. However, after Hoff began construction, it was later determined that the remodel constituted a "substantial improvement" under the city's floodplain ordinances, requiring additional compliance measures. The city subsequently refused to issue a certificate of occupancy, leading Hoff to sue the city.The District Court of Ward County held a bench trial and denied Hoff's claims for a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, injunction, and inverse condemnation. The court found that Hoff did not comply with the city's floodplain ordinances and that the remodel was a substantial improvement. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Hoff's negligence claim, concluding that the city was immune under N.D.C.C. § 32-12.1-03.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Hoff did not establish a clear legal right to a certificate of occupancy, as he did not comply with the city's ordinances. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Hoff's declaratory judgment and injunction claims. Additionally, the court concluded that Hoff failed to establish a "special relationship" with the city, which is necessary to overcome the city's immunity from negligence claims. The court also rejected Hoff's inverse condemnation claim, finding no total regulatory taking occurred. View "Hoff v. City of Burlington" on Justia Law

Benjamin Jones and Melanie Jones were married in 2003 and have two minor children. They resided in Glenburn, North Dakota, and purchased a modular home and surrounding acreage from Melanie's parents under a contract for deed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, payments on the contract were suspended, and no payments have been made since, leaving an outstanding debt. In March 2023, Benjamin filed for divorce. In February 2024, Melanie's father notified the parties of his intention to declare default and cancel the contract for deed. The trial was held later that month.The District Court of Renville County granted the divorce, awarded primary residential responsibility of the children to Benjamin, and divided the property and debts. The court found zero equity in the marital home due to nonpayment and the intention to foreclose. It reserved ruling on the final value of the marital home and debt consolidation loan for six months. The court awarded Melanie spousal support of $900 per month for 10 years and ordered her to pay $590 per month in child support.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the award of primary residential responsibility to Benjamin, finding no clear error in the lower court's decision. However, it reversed the lower court's reservation of ruling on the marital home and debt consolidation loan valuations, as well as the valuation of the marital home and corresponding debt without specific findings on the valuation date. The Supreme Court also found error in the child support calculation for omitting spousal support and in-kind income.The Supreme Court remanded the case for the lower court to clarify the valuation date for the marital property and debt, make specific findings if another valuation date is fair and equitable, redistribute the marital estate if valuations change, reconsider spousal support in light of any redistribution, and recalculate child support to include spousal support. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

Kareem Lee Byrd, Jr. was charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He entered an Alford plea to the conspiracy charge, and the murder charge was dismissed. Byrd was sentenced to twenty-five years, with five years suspended. He later filed for postconviction relief, arguing that he was convicted of a non-cognizable offense, his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.The District Court of Cass County denied Byrd’s application for postconviction relief. The court found that Byrd failed to show his Alford plea was not knowing or voluntary, failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and failed to demonstrate that withdrawal of his plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice. Byrd appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Byrd was convicted of a cognizable offense because he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit intentional murder, which is a cognizable offense. The court found that a sufficient factual basis supported Byrd’s plea and that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The court also concluded that Byrd failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he did not demonstrate that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. View "Byrd v. State" on Justia Law

Joshua Gomez was charged with multiple offenses in 2006, including criminal trespass, stalking, violation of a disorderly conduct restraining order, and gross sexual imposition (GSI). He pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, with a significant portion of the GSI sentence suspended and a probation period imposed. In 2018, after violating probation, his probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to 50 years with a substantial portion suspended, and credited for time served.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, handled the initial sentencing and the probation revocation. Gomez appealed the revocation and resentencing, which was summarily affirmed. In 2024, Gomez moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his resentencing exceeded the original suspended sentence and that he should receive credit for time spent in civil commitment at the State Hospital. The district court partially granted his motion, correcting the sentence but denying credit for the civil commitment time.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to exclude the time Gomez spent at the State Hospital from his sentence credit, as it was not directly related to the criminal charge. However, the court remanded the case for the district court to consider Gomez's argument regarding good time credit, which was not adequately addressed in the lower court's judgment. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judgment must explicitly state any good time credit accrued. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

In October 2022, officers responded to a shooting in Bismarck, North Dakota, where Christopher Sebastian was found dead in a vehicle with multiple gunshot wounds. Benjamin Williams was charged with murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Evidence collected included a black sweatshirt, face mask, glove, jeans, a .40 caliber pistol, cartridges, and ammunition magazines. Williams's trial began on April 1, 2024, and after six days, the jury found him guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life without parole for murder and five years for unlawful possession of a firearm, to be served concurrently. Williams appealed the decision.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, denied Williams's motion to exclude new witness testimony not disclosed by the State before the trial. Williams argued that the State's failure to provide new information about the witness's testimony constituted a Brady violation. The court found that Williams could have obtained the information with reasonable diligence and thus did not establish a Brady violation. Additionally, Williams's motion for sanctions regarding the State's failure to disclose a forensic examiner's employment records was denied, as the issue was not preserved for review.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that there was no Brady violation regarding the new witness testimony, as Williams had the opportunity to obtain the information with reasonable diligence. The court also declined to address the alleged Brady violation related to the forensic examiner's employment records, as it was not preserved for review. Lastly, the court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the State's closing arguments and concluded that Williams was not denied due process. The district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2021, Sharon Ceynar initiated a divorce action against William Ceynar. Following a bench trial, the District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, granted the divorce and divided the marital estate. Sharon received $1,218,903.90 in net assets, while William received $681,827.35. The court ordered the sale of the couple's real estate and mineral interests at public auction, with 55% of the proceeds going to William and 45% to Sharon.William appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its division of the marital estate, particularly given his large inheritance. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, noting that property distribution decisions are not reversed unless clearly erroneous. The court emphasized that the district court's findings are presumed correct and that it does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal.The Supreme Court found that the district court had properly considered the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, which include factors such as the duration of the marriage, the parties' ages, health, and financial circumstances. The district court had noted the long-term nature of the marriage and the need for both parties to have income-generating assets for retirement. Although William argued that his inheritance should result in a larger share of the marital estate, the court found that the district court had appropriately considered this factor and had not erred in its division.The Supreme Court also addressed William's contention that the district court erred in ordering the sale of the real property, noting that the court had the authority to do so to achieve an equitable distribution. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the property division was equitable and not clearly erroneous. View "Ceynar v. Ceynar" on Justia Law

Nathan Zent, who has spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, has been a student at Dickinson State University (DSU) since 2015, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in English with a Political Science Minor. Zent, who uses a motorized wheelchair and an iPad with text-to-speech assistive technology, received vocational rehabilitation (VR) services from the North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) from 2015 until May 2023. His individualized plan for employment (IPE) identified an employment outcome of journalist or writer, which DHHS supported until 2022. However, DHHS discontinued Zent’s services, citing concerns about his ability to achieve competitive integrated employment due to his need for significant support.The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of DHHS decided to discontinue Zent’s VR services, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed this decision. Zent appealed to the district court of Stark County, which also affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Zent then appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that DHHS’s decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the statutes and regulations governing VR services and that the ALJ applied the incorrect standard of proof.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that DHHS did not misapply the statutes and regulations governing VR services in determining that Zent’s chosen employment outcome of journalist or writer was inconsistent with the goal of competitive integrated employment. The court also concluded that the ALJ correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard, as the clear and convincing standard only applies to eligibility determinations for VR services, not to determinations regarding specific employment outcomes. View "Zent v. NDDHHS" on Justia Law

In January 2017, Bruce Higgins, Rebekka Higgins, the Estate of Judy Devney, and John L. Devney sought a judgment to quiet title to mineral interests in Williams County and recover oil and gas proceeds. The defendants, Maynard Lund, Kjersti Eide, Don Eide, and Jennifer Eide, denied the allegations and counterclaimed for quiet title. XTO Energy, Inc., Continental Resources, Inc., and Whiting Petroleum, Corp. requested dismissal of the complaint.The District Court of Williams County held a bench trial in April 2018 to interpret a 1964 warranty deed. The court found that the deed reserved Milton Higgins' entire interest in the top parcel and quieted title accordingly, resulting in a 50/50 split of the partnership mineral acres between the successors of Milton Higgins and Howard Lund. The court awarded the plaintiffs $237,000 in royalty damages plus fees and costs. In 2021, the court granted summary judgment motions by the plaintiffs, determining that the 1952 royalty deed conveyed a floating royalty rather than a fixed royalty. Final judgment was entered in January 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the 1964 warranty deed was ambiguous, allowing for extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent, and concluded that the reservation applied to both the top and bottom parcels. The court also found no valid stipulation regarding the interpretation of the 1952 royalty deed and determined that the deed conveyed a floating royalty. The court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the deeds and the division of the suspended oil and gas proceeds. View "Higgins v. Lund" on Justia Law

In May 2024, Darren Hoistad was arrested for driving under the influence and consented to a chemical breath test, which showed a result above the legal limit of 0.08. During the test, the arresting officer instructed Hoistad to continue blowing into the Intoxilyzer 8000 even after the tone stopped and the instrument displayed a zero before the decimal point. Hoistad argued that this deviation from the approved method rendered the test results inadmissible.The hearing officer overruled Hoistad’s objection and suspended his driving privileges for 91 days. Hoistad appealed to the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, which affirmed the hearing officer’s decision. The court found that the Intoxilyzer test was administered in accordance with the approved method and that the deviation did not affect the test's accuracy.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the hearing officer’s finding that the test was conducted in accordance with the approved method was not supported by the evidence. The court noted that the approved method requires the subject to stop blowing when the tone stops, and the officer’s repeated instructions to continue blowing constituted a deviation from the approved method. The court held that the Department of Transportation failed to provide expert testimony on the effect of this deviation on the test’s accuracy and reliability. Consequently, the court determined that the test was not fairly administered and the hearing officer abused his discretion in admitting the test results.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and the hearing officer’s decision to suspend Hoistad’s driving privileges. However, the court denied Hoistad’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, concluding that the Department acted with substantial justification in its decision. View "Hoistad v. NDDOT" on Justia Law