Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jasmine Nice appealed a district court judgment entered on her conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence-refusal-first offense in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(e)(2) pending an appeal of the court’s order denying her motion to dismiss. Nice argued N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(e) was unconstitutional, the deputy violated her due process rights when he read her the implied consent advisory multiple times, and the State’s failure to execute the search warrant should have resulted in dismissal of the refusal charge. Because Nice refused to take a urine test after a search warrant was secured, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Nice" on Justia Law

Rodney Chisholm appeals from the district court’s summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief, denial of his motion to compel, denial of his request for counsel, and denial of his request for a change of judge. Chisholm’s application for post-conviction relief stems from his conviction of murder on May 3, 2011. Chisholm was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the properly denied the peremptory demand for change of judge, and the Court affirmed the denial of the peremptory demand. The request for recusal of the assigned judge should have been considered by the assigned judge, and the Supreme Court therefore reversed the denial of the request for recusal based on bias and prejudice. The matter was remanded for consideration of the request for recusal for bias or prejudice by the assigned judge and, subsequent to a determination on the request for recusal, reconsideration of the motion to compel discovery, request for appointment of counsel, and summary dismissal of the post-conviction application. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Daren Purdy appealed an amended judgment after the district court denied his motion to modify primary residential responsibility for his two minor children and granted his motion to modify parenting time. He argued the district court erred in awarding Jessica Purdy primary residential responsibility of the children. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment, concluding the district court did not clearly err in denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility. View "Purdy v. Purdy, et al." on Justia Law

In September 2017, Fargo police implemented an undercover operation to apprehend individuals using the internet to arrange sexual encounters with minors. The operation posted an ad on the BackPage website describing an eighteen-year-old woman. Sixty-two different phone numbers responded to the ad, but after text conversations revealing the woman was fourteen, only two individuals agreed to meet her at a hotel. One of these individuals was Bhim Kumar Rai, a refugee from Nepal. Rai was read his Miranda rights and interrogated by two officers in the hotel room for approximately forty minutes. Other operation members were also in the room. Rai’s phone was seized and placed in “airplane mode.” During the interrogation, the officers read Rai messages from his conversation with the undercover officer and asked Rai for the pass code to his phone. Rai later filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing the officers unlawfully searched his phone and he did not validly waive his Miranda rights. The motion was denied. On appeal, Rai argued his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure was violated, his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when officers detained and questioned him without an interpreter or counsel, the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of patronizing a minor for commercial sexual activity, and a rational fact-finder would have found he proved the affirmative defense of entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed denial of Rai's suppression motion. View "North Dakota v. Rai" on Justia Law

M.M. appeals from a juvenile court order denying his motion to dismiss a juvenile petition pertaining to an underlying juvenile delinquency case after entering conditional admissions to committing delinquent acts of simple assault and contact by bodily fluids. On October 17, 2017, a juvenile petition was filed with the juvenile court. At the time the juvenile petition was filed, M.M. resided at the Youth Correctional Center (“YCC”). M.M. made his initial appearance on November 7, 2017. A pretrial conference was scheduled for November 14, 2017, and trial was set for November 27, 2017. On November 21, 2017, M.M. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the hearing on the petition was not held within the required time limits for a child in detention. M.M. simultaneously requested a continuance in order to allow him to complete discovery. The State opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing the motion itself was untimely and that M.M. was not a child in detention. The juvenile court denied M.M.’s motion to dismiss but granted his request for a continuance, delaying the trial an additional month. On January 16, 2018, M.M. admitted to the allegations of delinquent acts on a conditional basis, preserving his right to appeal. M.M. argued the juvenile court erred by denying his motion to dismiss because the hearing on the petition was not held within 30 days of the filing of the petition. M.M. conceded at oral argument that he was no longer contesting a violation regarding the timing of the initial hearing on the petition. The North Dakota Supreme Court found M.M.’s initial and adjudicative hearings were scheduled within time constraints prescribed by North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure, therefore affirming the juvenile court order denying his motion to dismiss. View "Interest of M.M." on Justia Law

James Alberts Jr. appealed an amended order revoking his probation and sentencing him to life in prison with the possibility of parole. In 2008, Alberts pled guilty to murder under N.D.C.C. 12.1-16-01, a class AA felony. The district court sentenced Alberts to 20 years in prison with the balance suspended for five years after he served seven years. The court ordered Alberts to serve the suspended portion on probation subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A, entitled “Conditions for Sentence to Probation Deferred or Suspended Sentence.” In May 2013, the conditions of Alberts’ probation were amended to include that he have no contact with children under the age of 18, except his biological siblings and their biological children and only if another adult approved by his probation officer was present. In October 2013, the State moved to revoke Alberts’ probation. After a hearing, the district court revoked Alberts’ probation, finding he violated the conditions of his probation. The court resentenced Alberts to life in prison, ordering him to serve 11 years with credit for time previously served and with “the remainder suspended for five (5) years from release from DOCR, with his previous Appendix A reimposed.” In December 2017, the State moved to revoke Alberts’ probation, alleging Alberts violated various conditions of his probation including being in possession of a dangerous weapon, failing to report to his probation officer, and committing multiple offenses. Alberts argued the district court’s 2013 order resentencing him did not say the suspended portion of the sentence was subject to probation or state the length of the term of probation, and therefore the court did not impose probation as part of his sentence. He contended he was not on probation and the court had no authority to revoke his probation and resentence him. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Alberts' sentence. View "North Dakota v. Alberts" on Justia Law

Austin Thorsteinson was convicted by jury of felony child abuse. In November 2016, a two-year-old child in Thorsteinson’s care suffered injuries that caused bleeding on the brain. A subsequent surgery removed part of the child’s skull to relieve pressure. The child suffered a stroke during hospitalization and tests indicated a portion of the child’s brain will not recover from the injury. Thorsteinson said the injury was from an accidental fall while he was holding the child. He told police the injury resulted from the impact between the child’s head and a hard object in the path of the fall. Thorsteinson argued on appeal the district court erred by admitting evidence of alleged prior bad acts. Thorsteinson further argued the district court failed to give adequate jury instructions on the definition of reckless conduct. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Thorsteinson" on Justia Law

William Carter appeals from a district court order denying discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Carter was convicted of gross sexual imposition in 2004. In February 2017, Carter filed motions requesting a discharge hearing and appointment of an independent examiner. Dr. Erik Fox, the State’s evaluator, filed a report in May and an addendum to that report in September, with an initial recommendation for post community placement. However, the addendum rescinded that recommendation as a result of new information Dr. Fox received during the summer of 2017. Dr. Stacey Benson, the independent examiner, also filed a report. The discharge hearing was held March 19, 2018. On appeal, Carter argues the State failed to meet its burden to prove that he was likely to engage in sexually predatory conduct and that he has difficulty controlling his behavior. The North Dakota Supreme Court found clear and convincing evidence in the record that the three statutory elements and the "Crane" factor were satisfied. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court’s order denying discharge. View "Interest of Carter" on Justia Law

Attas Boutrous and other landowners appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against Burleigh County, its Water Resource District, and Lincoln Township to halt a flood protection project in the Fox Island subdivision in Bismarck, denying their request for a preliminary injunction, dismissing their inverse condemnation action, and ordering them to pay Burleigh County and Lincoln Township $18,756.75 in costs and disbursements. Because we conclude the district court correctly applied the law and there are no genuine issues of material fact, we affirm the judgment. View "Becker, et al. v. Burleigh County, et al." on Justia Law

Shirley Linn appealed a district court order denying her petition seeking a distribution of trust assets, after the court concluded the unambiguous language of the trust agreement did not compel the requested distributions. Stephen Linn, Deborah Wagner, and Mark Wagner cross-appealed the district court’s denial of their request for a recovery of their attorney fees incurred in responding to Shirley Linn’s petition. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the trust agreement’s language was ambiguous, and reversed and remanded this case for further proceedings with the district court. View "Trust of Linn" on Justia Law