Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In December 2021, Jordan Juneau was charged with attempted murder with a dangerous weapon, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. The charges stemmed from an incident where Juneau allegedly committed theft and used a dangerous weapon. Following a five-day jury trial, Juneau was found guilty of burglary and robbery but acquitted of attempted murder. The jury, however, indicated on a special verdict form that Juneau did not use a dangerous weapon in the commission of the robbery.The District Court of Wells County, Southeast Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cherie L. Clark, entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict. Juneau was sentenced to 30 years with 10 years suspended for the robbery conviction. Juneau appealed, arguing that the jury's findings were inconsistent because the robbery conviction required the use of a dangerous weapon, which the jury found he did not use.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that the jury's findings on the special verdict form negated an essential element of the robbery charge, creating an irreconcilable inconsistency. The court distinguished this case from others where verdicts on different counts were inconsistent, emphasizing that the inconsistency here was within the same count. The court found that the jury's determination that Juneau did not use a dangerous weapon contradicted the requirement for a robbery conviction under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-01(2).The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the burglary conviction and the acquittal for attempted murder. However, it reversed the robbery conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings on that charge, due to the inconsistency in the jury's findings. View "State v. Juneau" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Equinor Energy LP's appeal against the North Dakota State Tax Commissioner's denial of sales tax refunds. Equinor, an oil and gas producer, had purchased and paid North Dakota sales tax on oilfield equipment, including separators, for several facilities. The company applied for a refund, arguing that the equipment was installed into a system used to compress, process, gather, collect, or refine gas, thus qualifying for a tax refund. The Tax Commissioner approved a portion of the claim but denied the remaining refund claim related to the purchase of separators.The Tax Commissioner issued an administrative complaint requesting denial of the remaining requested refund amount. The Commissioner argued that initial separators used during production do not qualify for the exemption, which applies only to equipment installed downstream of the wellsite transfer meter, i.e., off the wellsite. An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the denial of the refund claim, and the Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Equinor appealed to the district court, which reversed the Commissioner’s order. However, on remand, the ALJ again recommended the denial of Equinor’s refund. The district court affirmed the final order of the Commissioner, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioner's interpretation was in accordance with the language of the relevant statute. The court found that the separators merely isolated the three component parts of the well stream and did not gather or compress gas. Therefore, they did not qualify for the tax exemption. The court also noted that the legislature's intent in using the phrases “recovered from,” “a system to compress gas,” or “a system to gather gas” was clear, and it was unnecessary to apply “the rule of last resort” and construe the ambiguity in favor of the taxpayer. View "Equinor Energy v. State" on Justia Law