Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Karim Sabur Kabir Muhammad appealed after he was found guilty of gross sexual imposition - victim unaware. On appeal, Muhammad argued the district court erred by admitting recordings of Muhammad’s interrogations as evidence without requiring the recordings be published to the jury, by not publishing admitted evidence in open court he was denied the right to a public trial, and by excluding relevant evidence of his prior sexual contact with the victim. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Duane Landrus appeals from an amended criminal judgment and order for restitution after a jury found him guilty of aggravated and simple assault. Landrus was involved in a violent altercation involving David Roberts, Summer Tippett, and Jason Conn, among others. Roberts testified he and Tippett fell asleep by the firepit after hosting a cook-out. They awoke sometime after 2:00 a.m. and began cleaning up when they discovered Landrus in a storage shed on the property. A fight between Landrus and Roberts ensued, and Roberts suffered a stab wound from a knife later found at Landrus’s residence. Landrus punched Tippett when she tried to intervene. The neighbor, Conn, also tried to intervene and suffered minor cuts. Two other witnesses corroborated the stories of the injured parties. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Landrus" on Justia Law

The City of West Fargo appealed a district court order suppressing evidence of Tyler Williams’ refusal to submit to a chemical test, arguing N.D.C.C. 39-20-02 contemplated an arrestee only has a statutory right to an independent test if he has already submitted to the chemical test requested by law enforcement. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed that a plain reading of N.D.C.C. 39-20-02 required that the right to an additional independent test only arises when the driver submits to the chemical test requested by law enforcement. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order suppressing evidence and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of West Fargo v. Williams" on Justia Law

Lorenzo Pemberton appealed a district court’s criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, interference with an emergency call, felonious restraint, attempted murder, and child neglect. Pemberton was part of an incident involving his girlfriend, which occurred during the night of February 22 and extended into February 23, 2018. During the incident, Pemberton and the victim’s argument escalated and the victim eventually placed a 911 emergency call. Following the call, the argument became physical and Pemberton was alleged to have struck the victim and pushed her to the ground. While they were struggling on the ground, the victim saw a screwdriver on the floor, picked it up, and allegedly struck Pemberton with it. Pemberton obtained control of the screwdriver from the victim and struck her with it. Eventually law enforcement arrived at the scene, and Pemberton was taken into custody and placed under arrest. Pemberton argued the district court erred in granting the State’s motion to amend the criminal information one week before trial, the jury was provided improper instructions, the jury was provided with an improper verdict form, and the district court failed to properly admonish the jury before each break in the trial proceedings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Pemberton" on Justia Law

Steve Wolt appealed a judgment setting his monthly child support obligation at $923, and an order denying his motion for sanctions against the State and its attorney for allegedly frivolous legal positions posited during the child support proceedings. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court correctly interpreted the Child Support Guidelines in calculating Wolt’s child support obligation and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment and the order. View "Wolt v. Wolt, et al." on Justia Law

Elyse Puklich appealed, and Blayne Puklich cross-appealed, a district court judgment awarding Blayne $6,012,230. Elyse and Blayne Puklich were siblings who held ownership interests in a closely-held corporation, Puklich Chevrolet, Inc. (“PCI”, a limited partnership), B&E Holdings, LLP (“B&E”), and a closely-held corporation, B&E Bismarck Limited (“Limited”). In 2013, Elyse initiated this action to dissolve B&E. Blayne responded and asserted his own claims, including a request that the district court compel Elyse to buy his interest in PCI and seeking an award of damages for breach of fiduciary duties. In 2018, the district court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ordered the entry of a judgment: dissolving B&E, compelling Elyse to purchase Blayne’s interest in B&E for $2,940,660, and compelling Elyse to purchase Blayne’s 19 percent ownership interest in PCI for $2,622,000. The judgment also awarded Blayne $300,000 for Elyse’s breach of a fiduciary duty owed to Blayne with respect to B&E. Finally, the judgment provided an award of $149,570 to Blayne for Elyse’s breach of her duty of loyalty and fair dealing in winding up Limited. Upon reviewing the record, the North Dakota Supreme Court was not satisfied sufficient evidence was presented to support the court’s damage award to Blayne for Elyse’s breach of a fiduciary duty with respect to B&E, and therefore reversed that award. The Court affirmed in all other respects. View "Puklich v. Puklich, et al." on Justia Law

Pinky’s Aggregates, Inc., and its president, Dale Honsey, appealed the grant of summary judgment awarding Frontier Fiscal Services, LLC, $526,253.12 in its action for breach of contract and to collect on a personal guaranty. Because Pinky’s and Honsey failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment. View "Frontier Fiscal Services LLC v. Pinky's Aggregates, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

In March 2015, Cody Atkins pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition. Following the imposition of sentence, Atkins appealed the criminal judgment and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. Atkins later filed two applications for post-conviction relief; one in March of 2016 which was dismissed, and another in September of 2016 which was dismissed and later affirmed on appeal. Additionally, Atkins filed a motion to reduce his sentence in July 2017, a motion to dismiss the GSI charge in November 2017, a motion to “vacate” his guilty plea in February 2018, and a motion for a new trial in March 2018. The district court considered the February 2018 and March 2018 motions constituted a singular third application for post-conviction relief. Then in November 2018, Atkins filed another application for post-conviction relief, the subject of this appeal, claiming 10 grounds for relief, alleging: (1) he was presented an unlawful arrest warrant; (2) he made an involuntary or coerced confession; (3) inconsistent statements made by everyone during the interrogation process; (4) the prosecution was using false evidence; (5) the sexual assault kit indicated no signs of injury; (6) law enforcement officers did not knock and announce their presence; (7) judicial bias; (8) malicious prosecution; (9) illegal information; and (10) an illusory plea. On December 3, 2018, the State filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses of misuse of process and res judicata and moved, under N.D.R.Ct. 3.2, to dismiss the application. Four days later, on December 7, 2018, the district court issued an order denying Atkins’ application for post-conviction relief, concluding Atkins was procedurally barred from raising the claims contained in his application due to the doctrines of misuse of process and res judicata. The Supreme Court reversed the district court order as to this latest application for post-conviction relief, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Atkins v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Cody Atkins appealed a district court order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and his motion for a new trial. In March 2015, Atkins pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. In June 2015, Atkins was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment with the North Dakota Department of Corrections, with five years suspended for a period of 10 years of supervised probation with credit for time served. Atkins argued the district court erred by: (1) classifying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea as a post-conviction relief proceeding, and (2) finding he was procedurally barred from raising his N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 claims under misuse of process and res judicata. Atkins also argued the district court abused its discretion by finding he did not meet the burden required to show the existence of newly discovered evidence in his motion for a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Atkins" on Justia Law

Steve Forster, Daniel Krebs, and Debra Krebs (collectively “Forster/Krebs”) appealed summary judgment that dismissed their claims against B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court correctly construed the language in the parties’ lease agreement, as a whole, to operated as a waiver of claims against each other for damages to the leased building and the contents therein. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the provision in the parties’ lease waiving any claims against the other for any loss or damage to the leased premises or property therein was unenforceable to the extent it exempted B&B Hot Oil from responsibility for a willful or negligent violation of law. The Court thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "James Vault & Precast Co., et al. v. B&B Hot Oil Service, Inc., et al." on Justia Law