Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Clyde Pickens appeals a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Pickens argues the district court's errors in responding to two requests from the jury prejudiced his substantial rights and denied him a fair trial. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court held a court must allow a jury to rehear any testimony requested. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, a court must respond to a jury's question or request for testimony in open court. Here, the district court's failure to bring the jury into open court and inform them that audio testimony was available were not constitutional errors; the court's responses to the jury's requests occurred in Pickens' presence. It was unclear whether any communications occurred between the jury and the clerk outside of Pickens' presence. Without a record of the interaction between the clerk and the jury, the Supreme Court felt it could only speculate as to whether any communications between them violated Pickens' constitutional right to be present. The Court did not decide whether one of these errors by itself had a significant impact upon the verdict. Taken as a whole, it concluded that the cumulative effect of these errors denied Pickens his right to a fair trial and prejudiced his substantial rights. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Pickens" on Justia Law

Joshua Rose appealed a district court order denying his motion to reinstate his driver's license. Because the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction to review the Minot Regional Child Support Unit's decision to suspend Rose's license, the North Dakota Supreme Court vacated the orders relating to his suspension. View "North Dakota v. Rose" on Justia Law

N.B., the father, and J.G., the mother, appealed a juvenile court order finding their child, J.B., to be a deprived child and granting legal custody to Cass County Social Services. A "deprived child" under North Dakota law is a child who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental, or emotional health, or morals, and the deprivation is not due primarily to the lack of financial means of the child's parents, guardian, or other custodian. The phrase "proper parental care" meant the minimum standards of care which the community will tolerate. "A court need not await the happening of a tragic event to protect a child, particularly when a sibling has been found to be deprived. Abuse of one child is relevant to the care a parent will provide to other siblings." After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined clear and convincing evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that J.B. was deprived and affirmed the order. View "Interest of J.B." on Justia Law

Tamra Knudson appealed a judgment that granted her a divorce from Mark Knudson, but denied her request for spousal support, and ordered her to pay child support. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court's decision denying Tamra Knudson's request for rehabilitative spousal support was not clearly erroneous and the court did not misapply the law in calculating her child support obligation. View "Knudson v. Knudson" on Justia Law

Bradley and Karol Johnson appealed a judgment granting the law firm Barna, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. ("BGS") foreclosure of a real estate mortgage for payment of a $258,769.97 debt, and an order denying their N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. In 2013 the Johnsons retained BGS to represent them in a lawsuit in connection with the probate of the estate of Bradley Johnson's father in Minnesota. The Johnsons resided in, and BGS was located in, the Minneapolis, Minnesota area. BGS extended credit to the Johnsons for costs, fees, and expenses that would be incurred in representing them in the lawsuit through a revolving line of credit agreement and a revolving promissory note. To secure payment, the Johnsons executed a mortgage on land they owned in North Dakota. The mortgage required the Johnsons to pay all of the principal and interest on the indebtedness when due to BGS. The Johnsons failed to make the payments to BGS as required under the loan agreements. In 2015 BGS brought this action against the Johnsons and others in North Dakota to foreclose the mortgage. The Johnsons counterclaimed, alleging its attorneys committed legal malpractice and other torts during the Minnesota legal proceedings. The district court ultimately dismissed the Johnsons' counterclaim without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). The court granted summary judgment for foreclosure on the North Dakota property in favor of BGS, concluding the Johnsons were indebted to BGS in the amount of $258,769.97 under the loan agreements with interest continuing to accrue. Because the Johnsons did not establish the district court erred in any of its rulings, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, and the order denying the motion for relief from judgment. View "Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. v. Johnson" on Justia Law

D.D. appealed a district court order requiring his involuntary hospitalization and treatment, directing law enforcement to seize D.D.'s firearms, and finding that federal and state firearm restrictions applied to him. And application for evaluation and emergency admission was filed, request for transportation for emergency detention made, and petition for involuntary commitment, alleging that D.D. was mentally ill and in need of emergency treatment was granted. D.D. was admitted to the North Dakota State Hospital. After a preliminary hearing, the district court ordered involuntary hospitalization and treatment at the State Hospital for fourteen days, and found the firearm restrictions under 18 U.S.C. sections 922(d)(4), 922(g)(4), and N.D.C.C. 62.1-02-01(1)(c) applied. Law enforcement seized about 100 firearms from D.D.'s residence. The State Hospital released D.D. three days after that seizure. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the state and federal firearms restrictions were not unconstitutionally vague and applied to D.D. However, the Court reversed the order to seize D.D.'s firearms because neither the state nor the district court identified legal authority for issuing a summary seizure order as part of a mental health commitment process. View "Interest of D.D." on Justia Law

Raymond and Linus Poitra appealed a judgment quieting title in two parcels of land on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation in Darrel Gustafson, and ordering the Poitras to pay Gustafson $67,567.98 in damages and $6,620 in attorney's fees. In 2015, Gustafson sued the Poitras and all others claiming an interest in two parcels of land, alleging Gustafson was a non-Indian fee owner of the two parcels located in Rolette County, North Dakota within the exterior boundaries of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation by virtue of a 2007 foreclosure judgment and a 2008 sheriff's deed. The Poitras argued the district court erred in deciding the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over Gustafson's action. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the inherent sovereign powers of an Indian tribe generally do not extend to activities of nonmembers on non-Indian fee land, but a tribe may regulate through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealings, contracts, leases or other arrangements, and a tribe may also exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within the reservation when the conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe. The Court concluded the tribal court indeed did not have jurisdiction over Gustafson's action to quiet title and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Gustafson v. Poitra" on Justia Law

Roland Riemers petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and issue a writ of mandamus directing the North Dakota Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger to order a recount of the June 12, 2018 primary election for the office of secretary of state. Riemers argued he was entitled to an automatic recount under N.D.C.C. 16.1-16-01(1)(a) because he "failed to be nominated in a primary election by one percent or less of the highest vote cast for a candidate for the office sought." The Supreme Court determined the plain language of N.D.C.C. § 16.1-16-01(1)(a) requires a comparison of the highest votes cast for a candidate for the office sought without regard to the candidate's party. “The fact that we are required to construe N.D.C.C. 16.1-16-01(1)(a) does not preclude the remedy of mandamus.” Moreover, given the time constraints on ballot preparation for the general election, the Court determined no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law was available for Riemers. Under the plain language of N.D.C.C. 16.1-16-01(1)(a), Riemers was entitled to an automatic recount, and the Secretary of State was statutorily required to order that automatic recount. The Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction to consider Riemers' petition, and granted his request for a writ of mandamus. View "Riemers v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

After adjournment of the Regular Session of the 65th Legislative Assembly, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum vetoed five items in four appropriation bills by striking through certain language in the bills before signing them into law. In an opinion requested by Senator Rich Wardner and Representative Al Carlson, the Attorney General concluded three of the partial vetoes were ineffective: Senate Bill 2003, section 18, subsection 3 ("Any Portion Veto"); House Bill 1020, section 5 ("Water Commission Veto"); and Senate Bill 2013, section 12 ("IT Project Veto"). The Attorney General stated that these partial vetoes were ineffective because they exceeded the Governor's constitutional authority by attempting to veto a condition on an appropriation without vetoing the appropriation itself. The Attorney General further stated that, although the Water Commission Veto and IT Project Veto were ineffective, a court would conclude the vetoed language is unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. The Legislative Assembly, joined by individual legislators consisting of the leaders of the senate and the House of Representatives and of the legislative management committee, petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the five partial vetoes. Governor Burgum, joined by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, cross-petitioned seeking judgment declaring unconstitutional the provisions in two bills which condition the spending or transfer of certain appropriated funds upon approval of a legislative committee. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, denied it in part, and granted the cross-petition. All claims presented were justiciable controversies: (1) the Workplace Safety Veto was valid and effective; (2) the Credit Hour Veto, Any Portion Veto, Water Commission Veto, and IT Project Veto were ineffective, causing the bills to have been enacted in their entirety. The Governor had standing to bring the cross-petition, and the Attorney General could advocate on the Governor's behalf. The budget section provision of House Bill 1020, section 5, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation and violation of separation of powers, and the provision providing the water commission the authority to transfer funds among categories was also stricken. The budget section provision of Senate Bill 2013, section 12, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation and violation of separation of powers, and the budget section condition was stricken. View "N.D. Legislative Assembly v. Burgum" on Justia Law

Bismarck Police received a call from a shipping store employee about a suspicious package defendant Mitchell Biwer dropped off to be shipped to Denver, Colorado. The employee told police "[Biwer] was explaining too much and talking too much about why the package was being sent out. And then when questioned what was in the package, he said it was an owner's manual, and the cost for shipping this owner's manual was $47 for overnight shipping." Upon inspection, police observed a cardboard mailer bulging in a way consistent with cash rather than an owner's manual. Biwer had a 2013 conviction for marijuana possession, and the package recipient had a 2010 conviction for marijuana possession with intent to deliver. Police applied for a warrant, testifying to these facts, his drug interdiction training, and his belief Colorado was a major source for marijuana in North Dakota. The magistrate granted the first search warrant for the package. Inside the package was $4,700.00 in four separate envelopes marked with initials. Between observing the package and applying for the search warrant, police conducted a trash pull at what they believed was Biwer's address, which lead to a second and third search warrant. Biwer entered a conditional guilty plea to six felonies and three misdemeanors relating to drug possession and distribution. Biwer appealed, arguing probable cause did not exist for the first and a third search warrant; he did not contest the validity of the second warrant. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the evidence showed Biwer may have been sending cash rather than an owner's manual, but nothing more than a hunch showed he was sending illicit proceeds from the sale of drugs. Accordingly, the Court reversed judgment as to suppression of evidence relating to the contents of the package (first warrant). The Court affirmed as to the search warrant to search the residence. The case was remanded to allow Biwer to withdraw his guilty plea and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Biwer" on Justia Law