Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dayne Watts was involved in an altercation with his girlfriend, Leah Redeagle, in their shared home, which also housed Redeagle’s infant child. Watts was charged with multiple offenses, including domestic violence, terrorizing, felonious restraint, child neglect, simple assault on emergency personnel, contact by bodily fluids, preventing arrest, and criminal mischief. During the trial, both Redeagle and Watts testified, along with law enforcement and medical personnel. The jury acquitted Watts of domestic violence but found him guilty of the remaining charges.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge John A. Thelen, held a jury trial in October 2023. Following the trial, Watts was convicted on several charges, and a criminal judgment was entered. Watts appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions, insufficient evidence for the child neglect conviction, and prosecutorial misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that Watts failed to establish that the jury instructions on the definition of “family or household member” constituted obvious error affecting his substantial rights. The court also determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the child neglect conviction, as testimony indicated Watts was a household member and partially responsible for the child’s care. Additionally, the court concluded that Watts did not meet his burden to show that the prosecutor’s comments constituted prosecutorial misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment but remanded the case to the district court to correct a clerical error in the judgment, ensuring it accurately reflected that Watts was found guilty after a jury trial, not based on guilty pleas. View "State v. Watts" on Justia Law

Benjamin Nordquist appealed a judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus. The case involves a dispute over the recording of a quitclaim deed for a portion of land in Witzig’s Fifth Subdivision, Stutsman County, North Dakota. Diane and Duane Witzig originally owned the land, which was platted into three lots in 2014. Diane Witzig later conveyed these lots to Gannon Van Gilder and Levi Hintz. In 2022, Diane Witzig provided a quitclaim deed to Nordquist for a portion of the subdivision depicted as 6th Street SW on the plat map. Nordquist attempted to record this deed, but the Stutsman County Recorder refused, citing discrepancies in the property description and forwarded it to the Auditor.The District Court of Stutsman County denied Nordquist’s petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the quitclaim deed changed the current property description and thus required a certificate of transfer from the Auditor. The court also noted that the Auditor had discretion to request the land be replatted due to the irregularities in the property description and previous conveyances.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the lower court that the quitclaim deed changed the current property description, necessitating a certificate of transfer from the Auditor. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court improperly determined that the 2018 and 2021 deeds conveyed the north 60 feet of Witzig’s Fifth Subdivision. The Supreme Court held that property ownership should be determined in a separate proceeding involving all relevant parties. The court affirmed the denial of Nordquist’s petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that Nordquist had not demonstrated a clear legal right to compel the Auditor to issue the certificate of transfer. View "Nordquist v. Alonge" on Justia Law

Lisa Schoenberg and Joshua Schoenberg, parents of two minor children, divorced in 2017 and agreed to share joint and equal residential responsibility. In November 2023, Lisa moved to modify this arrangement, seeking primary residential responsibility. She supported her motion with declarations and exhibits, including a declaration from an attorney who interviewed the children. Joshua opposed the motion, arguing Lisa failed to establish a prima facie case and objected to the attorney’s declaration and letter as hearsay.The District Court of Cass County struck the attorney’s declaration and letter, concluding they contained hearsay and did not meet the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The court also denied Lisa’s motion to modify residential responsibility, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case. Lisa’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court held that the attorney’s declaration and letter were correctly excluded as they were not more probative than affidavits or declarations from the children themselves. The court also found that Lisa failed to establish a prima facie case for modification. Although she demonstrated material changes in circumstances, such as the children’s counseling and Joshua’s significant other moving in, she did not show these changes adversely affected the children or led to a general decline in their condition. Consequently, the court concluded that Lisa did not meet the necessary legal standard to warrant an evidentiary hearing for modifying residential responsibility. View "Schoenberg v. Schoenberg" on Justia Law

Brandon Schweitzer was charged with one count of reckless endangerment, four counts of fleeing a police officer, and one count of driving under suspension after a series of police pursuits on August 15-16, 2022. Schweitzer pleaded guilty to the charges during a change of plea hearing where the court confirmed he understood the charges and the potential penalties. Schweitzer later filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising him of a potential double jeopardy defense and failing to file a motion to dismiss some of the charges.The District Court of Burleigh County denied Schweitzer's petition and amended petition for postconviction relief. The court found that Schweitzer and his attorney had discussed the case, and the attorney had advised him appropriately. The court also found that Schweitzer's claims lacked credible evidence and legal support. The court concluded that Schweitzer's attorney's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that Schweitzer failed to show his attorney was ineffective for not raising a double jeopardy defense.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Schweitzer did not meet the first prong of the Strickland test, which requires showing that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court found that Schweitzer failed to provide substantive law supporting his claim that the four counts of fleeing police violated the double jeopardy clause. The court concluded that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that Schweitzer did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Schweitzer v. State" on Justia Law

Duane Durr, diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, appointed his step-daughter, Dawn Volden, as his attorney-in-fact in 2017, granting her broad discretion over his assets. Volden used Durr’s credit cards and checking account for various expenditures, some of which Durr later claimed were unauthorized. Durr filed a lawsuit against Volden in 2021, alleging she breached her fiduciary duties and seeking an accounting of her spending.The District Court of Cass County held a three-day bench trial in May 2023. The court found that while Volden owed Durr a fiduciary duty, the evidence was insufficient to prove she breached that duty. The court noted that some transactions seemed suspect but concluded that most were permitted under the power of attorney. The court dismissed Durr’s claims, finding he failed to prove Volden’s actions constituted willful misconduct or gross negligence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred by not applying the presumption of undue influence, which should be applied to transactions between parties in a confidential relationship, such as an attorney-in-fact and their principal. The Supreme Court held that Durr had met his burden by showing suspicious transactions and unaccounted-for withdrawals, shifting the burden to Volden to disprove the presumption of undue influence. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision, requiring the lower court to apply the correct legal standard and burden shift. View "Durr v. Volden" on Justia Law

Cody Wayne Ritter was convicted of sexual assault after his fifteen-year-old stepdaughter alleged inappropriate contact. The minor underwent a forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center, which was recorded and marked as evidence. During the trial, the defense and prosecution discussed the contents of the video, which included allegations of misconduct in Texas. The district court admitted the video into evidence over the defense's objections, which argued that its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value.The District Court of Ransom County admitted the video, reasoning that the defense had opened the door to its contents by eliciting testimony about the Texas incident. The court allowed the video to be shown to the jury during deliberations, despite the defense's objections under N.D.R.Ev. 403. The jury subsequently convicted Ritter of sexual assault.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the video without properly weighing its prejudicial impact against its probative value. The Supreme Court noted that the district court had not viewed the video in its entirety and failed to assess the specific instances of alleged misconduct. The court emphasized that the doctrine of "opening the door" requires a careful, topic-by-topic assessment and that the district court did not adequately consider the potential for undue prejudice and confusion. Consequently, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment against Ritter. View "State v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Jarrod Adams was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted gross sexual imposition and kidnapping. The charges stemmed from an incident on May 1, 2022, in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. The information used both "intentional" and "willful" to describe the culpability required for the attempted gross sexual imposition charge. The jury instructions defined the offense as requiring intentional conduct. Adams was also charged with kidnapping, with the jury instructed that the offense included abducting another person with the intent to terrorize or commit a felony.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over the trial. Adams did not object to the jury instructions at trial, and the jury found him guilty of both attempted gross sexual imposition and kidnapping. Adams appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were inconsistent and that the evidence was insufficient to support the kidnapping conviction as a class A felony.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions properly informed the jury of the level of culpability necessary to convict Adams of attempted gross sexual imposition, consistent with the precedent set in State v. Pendleton. The court also found that Adams had invited any error in the kidnapping instructions by requesting them himself, thus waiving his right to challenge them on appeal. The court concluded that the subsections of the kidnapping statute are alternative means of committing the offense, not separate crimes, and therefore the jury's verdict was unanimous.However, the court agreed with Adams that he was improperly sentenced for a class A felony kidnapping when the facts only supported a class B felony. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing on the kidnapping charge to impose a sentence consistent with the facts proven. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

Renae Gerszewski filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order (DCRO) against Conrad Rostvet, leading to a temporary DCRO and a scheduled hearing. Rostvet responded by filing his own petitions for DCROs against Renae and Wayne Gerszewski. The cases were consolidated, and the hearing was delayed for nearly six months due to continuances. The dispute centered around the use of a road running from the highway past Rostvet’s property to the Gerszewskis’ property.The District Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District, heard testimony about the ongoing conflict and issued an order granting Renae Gerszewski’s petition for a DCRO while denying Rostvet’s petitions. The court found that Rostvet’s actions, including stopping his vehicle to point at Renae, cultivating land near her, blocking the road, and pushing snow into the roadway, constituted disorderly conduct. Rostvet appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion and that his actions were constitutionally protected.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the DCRO to Renae Gerszewski, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that Rostvet engaged in disorderly conduct. The court also found no error in the district court’s denial of Rostvet’s petitions, as he failed to show that the Gerszewskis engaged in disorderly conduct. Additionally, the Supreme Court rejected Rostvet’s arguments regarding judicial notice of documents and the delay in the hearing, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower court. View "Rostvet v. Gerszewski" on Justia Law

Philip Ritter appealed a divorce judgment, challenging the district court's decisions on the valuation and distribution of the marital estate, spousal support, and child support obligations. Philip and Megan Ritter were married in 2008 and have three minor children. Megan was the primary income earner until 2014, after which Philip's income fluctuated significantly. Megan filed for divorce in July 2022, and the trial was held in June 2023. The district court awarded Megan primary residential responsibility for the children, spousal support of $2,000 per month, and child support of $4,023 per month.The district court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, valued the marital home at $328,540, incorporating both parties' valuation methods and the cost of a kitchen remodel. The court allocated the Bank of America Platinum Plus Credit Card debt to Philip, finding he failed to account for part of the debt. The court also included an indemnity clause for joint debts, deciding not to require refinancing of the marital home mortgage due to Megan's inability to refinance.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no clear error in the district court's valuation and distribution of the marital estate. The court affirmed the spousal support award, noting the significant disparity in the parties' incomes and Megan's career sacrifices. The court also upheld the child support calculation, which averaged Philip's fluctuating income over three years, resulting in a monthly obligation of $4,023 for three children.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the findings on property valuation, spousal support, and child support were not clearly erroneous and were supported by the evidence. View "Ritter v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Keith and Latasha Warner were married in 2018 and have one child. In May 2022, Keith filed for divorce and requested primary residential responsibility. The parties initially agreed to an interim order granting equal residential responsibility. After mediation in August 2022, a summary agreement was prepared but not signed by either party. Keith served multiple documents to Latasha at an incorrect address, causing her to miss a scheduling conference and not receive a notice of trial. Despite this, the court mailed a scheduling order to her correct address, setting a trial date for June 5, 2023.At trial, Latasha requested a continuance to retain counsel, which the court denied. The court awarded primary residential responsibility to Keith. Latasha did not appeal the judgment but later moved for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60, arguing that Keith's misrepresentation about the mediation agreement prevented her from fairly preparing her case. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied her motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of Latasha’s motion for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion. The court found that the mediation agreement was not binding as it was not signed or approved by the court. The court also found that Keith’s counsel’s statement during trial was inaccurate but did not prevent Latasha from fairly preparing her case. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Latasha’s motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) and affirmed the decision. View "Warner v. Warner" on Justia Law