Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dametrian Welch appealed a district court order and amended criminal judgment. In the original judgment, count one incorrectly stated that Welch pled guilty to murder. Although Welch was originally charged with murder, under the plea agreement, the State amended the charge to “Criminal Facilitation to Murder” in exchange for Welch’s guilty plea to both criminal facilitation to murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. Welch requested the court correct its clerical error in the original judgment by amending the title of the offense in count one from “murder” to “criminal facilitation” and listing the facilitation statute, N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-02, instead of the murder statute. The State agreed that the facilitation statute could be added but should not replace the murder statute because the charge was facilitation of murder. The State argued the district court did not abuse its discretion in describing the offense of conviction as “Criminal Facilitation to Murder.” Finding no reason to disturb the district court’s order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Welch" on Justia Law

James Burden appealed district court orders summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief and denying his motion for relief from that dismissal. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court applied the wrong standard in dismissing Burden’s application on the pleadings and that he was not given the required time to respond to a dismissal by summary judgment. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Burden v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Adam Lizakowski appealed a district court judgment and post-judgment orders awarding Tonia Lizakowski marital property, primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor children, and attorney’s fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court erroneously excluded property from the marital estate. The Court affirmed in all other respects, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Lizakowski v. Lizakowski" on Justia Law

Michael Wills appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Wills argued the district court erred in denying his motion because the arresting deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion to believe further criminal activity justified detaining and searching the vehicle after the stop ended. The North Dakota Supreme Court found the deputy needed renewed articulable suspicion to continue detention of the vehicle and passengers; the record did not support the continued seizure and search of the vehicle after the deputy ended the traffic stop. The Court therefore reversed judgment and remanded to permit Wills to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Wills" on Justia Law

Spencer Norton appealed a judgment entered after the district court denied his motion to dismiss and accepted his conditional guilty plea to the charge of failure to register as an offender against children. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-15(3) imposed a statutory duty on Norton to register, and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Norton" on Justia Law

George Lyons appealed from a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Lyons argued there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the district court committed obvious error by not declaring a mistrial after the jury heard prohibited testimony. The North Dakota Supreme Court, after review of the trial court record, determined that record reflected that at the request of defense counsel the court struck the neighbor’s later nonresponsive testimony and gave a curative instruction. Lyons did not request a mistrial, but indicated he was satisfied with the court’s admonishment. The Supreme Court was thus satisfied the trial court did not deviate from established precedent in striking the responses and giving curative instructions. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court’s failure to grant a mistrial on its own motion did not constitute a clear deviation from applicable law. View "North Dakota v. Lyons" on Justia Law

W.C. appealed a district court order denying his petition to adjudicate paternity and seeking a determination of residential responsibility, decision making responsibility, parenting time, and child support. W.C. alleges he was the father of a child born to J.H. In November 2013. W.C. and J.H. began a romantic relationship in late 2012 while J.H was married to T.H. The couple divorced in June 2013. Because J.H. gave birth to the child within 300 days of the divorce, T.H. was the presumed father under North Dakota law. The child’s birth certificate did not list a father. In 2018, after the statute of limitations for challenging a presumed father expired, W.C. commenced an action to adjudicate paternity of the child, seeking a determination of residential responsibility, decision making responsibility, parenting time, and child support. The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. Before the hearing, J.H. filed a motion to quash discovery, arguing W.C.’s requests for financial and medical records were not relevant, onerous, grossly invasive, and even if provided could not establish facts to support the relief sought in the petition. The district court granted the motion to quash discovery, finding medical and financial records were not relevant. The court thereafter held a hearing on the paternity claim, hearing testimony from W.C., J.H., and T.H. Based on testimony and interrogatory answers from T.H. the district court found W.C. failed to disprove the parent-child relationship. The district court also found W.C. failed to establish T.H. and J.H. did not cohabitate nor engage in a sexual relationship during the probable time of conception. The district court denied W.C.’s petition. W.C. argued on appeal of the district court order that the court abused its discretion in granting a motion quashing discovery. Finding no error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "W.C. v. J.H., et al." on Justia Law

Matthew Overholt appealed a district court order modifying its order deferring imposition of sentence. In November 2017 Overholt was charged with misdemeanor minor in possession or consumption of alcohol. In December 2017 he pled guilty. The district court entered an order deferring imposition of sentence and placed him on unsupervised probation with an end date of November 30, 2018, and with the condition that he violate no criminal laws during the probation term. The court further ordered that sixty-one days after termination of his unsupervised probation, Overholt’s guilty plea would be withdrawn, the case dismissed, and the file sealed. In April 2018 Overholt was charged with a second misdemeanor minor in possession or consumption of alcohol. In May 2018 he pled guilty in the second case, and the court entered an order deferring imposition of sentence, and placed him on unsupervised probation for three months. Overholt completed the term of unsupervised probation in the second case. Under the order deferring imposition of sentence in that case, on October 13, 2018, his guilty plea was withdrawn, the case dismissed, and the file was to have been sealed. In December 2018 the State moved the district court to modify the order deferring imposition of sentence in this case on the basis of his offense and guilty plea in the second case. The State requested Overholt’s guilty plea in this case not be withdrawn, the case not be dismissed, and the file not be sealed. On December 31, 2018, the court granted the State’s motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed because the district court erred in relying on the second case that had been automatically dismissed to modify its order in this case, and because the State presented no other evidence supporting its motion. View "North Dakota v. Overholt" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a hearing officer's decision, imposing a 91-day suspension of Benjamin French's driving privileges, and awarding him attorney fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court erred in holding French's driving record did not establish his operator's license had previously been revoked within seven years preceding the date of his June 2018 arrest, and the court erred in concluding the appropriate suspension for his then-current offense was 91 days. The court also erred in awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed judgment, reinstated the Department's decision suspending French's driving privileges for 365 days. View "French v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Brian Welken appealed a district court judgment piercing Lakeview Excavating, Inc.’s corporate veil and holding him personally responsible for money damages awarded to Eugene Taszarek, Marlys Taszarek, Trina Schilling, Steven Taszarek, and Michael Taszarek. In the spring of 2012, German Township in Dickey County, North Dakota selected Lakeview Excavating as a contractor for FEMA-funded road projects. Welken was Lakeview Excavating’s president and sole shareholder. A farmer who owned land adjacent to land owned by the Taszareks permitted Lakeview Excavating to enter his property to harvest field rock used for the road projects. However, Lakeview Excavating also took rock from the Taszareks’ property that was used in the road projects. The Taszareks sued Lakeview Excavating and Welken for intentional trespass, conversion of property, and unjust enrichment. The trespass and conversion claims were tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in the Taszareks’ favor, finding Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken and holding both parties liable for damages. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that while Welken had consented to the jury deciding the alter ego issue, the district court did not adequately instruct the jury on the alter ego doctrine. On remand the district court ordered a March 2018 bench trial on the issue of whether Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken, concluding Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken and ruled the Taszareks could recover damages from either Welken or Lakeview Excavating. Welken argued on appeal the district court erred in piercing Lakeview Excavating’s corporate veil and holding him personally liable for the Taszareks’ damages. The Supreme Court again reversed, concluding the district court did not make adequate findings of fact under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and its findings relating to piercing Lakeview Excavating’s corporate veil were inadequate to permit appellate review. View "Taszarek, et al. v. Lakeview Excavating, Inc., et al." on Justia Law