Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Kimberly Ann Henderson, who was convicted of exploitation of a vulnerable adult and attempted theft. Henderson worked for Home Helpers, an agency that assists elderly people. During her time there, she was assigned to Mr. and Mrs. Cooper and had access to their financial information. The State alleged she used the Coopers’ financial accounts to pay her bills and make personal purchases. She was charged with exploitation of an eligible adult and criminal attempt of theft of property, with the value of the funds in question exceeding $50,000 and $10,000 respectively.At trial, the State presented testimony from four witnesses and submitted thirteen exhibits, including financial documents, receipts, an eviction notice, surveillance photos from multiple businesses, and a video of an interview with Henderson. Henderson objected to the admissibility of 12 exhibits, arguing they were not properly authenticated and were inadmissible hearsay. The District Court overruled these objections and admitted the exhibits. The jury subsequently convicted Henderson on both counts.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the District Court had abused its discretion by admitting the exhibits without proper authentication and as inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court held that the testimony did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 803(6)(D), N.D.R.Ev. which provides a hearsay exception for records kept in the regular course of business. The Court found that the detective's testimony did not explain how the exhibits came into existence in the ordinary course of business, nor did the record contain an affidavit that could have rendered them self-authenticating. Given these pervasive errors and considering a set value was alleged in each count, the judgment was reversed. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The case involved David Papenhausen, who sustained an injury when his foot fell through a hole concealed by a layer of ice and snow on an oil well site operated by ConocoPhillips Company and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP. Papenhausen sued the companies under North Dakota law, alleging negligence and premises liability due to the existence of an unreasonably dangerous hole concealed by ice and snow due to the defendants' negligent maintenance of the well site.The Supreme Court of North Dakota answered two certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota concerning the state's natural accumulation rule, which generally precludes liability for injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice. The questions asked whether the rule applies to an oil well site in a rural area and if it still applies if it conceals a condition substantially more dangerous than one typically associated with ice and snow.The court answered the first question in the affirmative, ruling that the natural accumulation rule does apply to a rural oil well site. The court reasoned that it is unreasonable to expect property owners to continually monitor and clear snow or ice from remote areas. For the second question, the court answered in the negative, stating that the concealment of a dangerous condition by snow or ice is outside the scope of the natural accumulation rule. The court held that when snow or ice conceals a separate danger, the question of the owner's duty is considered differently - focusing on the obviousness of that danger and whether the owner knew or should have known about it. View "Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co." on Justia Law

In this case, J.C.P., the father of A.P., appealed a juvenile court's decision to terminate his parental rights. The child had been placed in protective custody due to his negligence and was adjudicated in need of protection. Both parents were in default, and the court had extended protective custody for an additional nine months. The mother did not appear at any of the hearings, but J.C.P. did, except for the final status conference. At this conference, the State moved for default against J.C.P., and the court agreed, terminating both parents' rights.J.C.P. argued that the court had abused its discretion by taking judicial notice of the affidavit underlying the petition without receiving testimony or other evidence in support of termination. He claimed that the court's findings were erroneous as they were not supported by evidence in the record. The Supreme Court of North Dakota agreed, finding that the juvenile court had abused its discretion by relying on an affidavit that the State never offered and the court never received into evidence.The court also pointed out that the juvenile court should not have accepted the qualified expert witness's affidavit instead of testimony, as the parties had not stipulated to this. The Court concluded that the juvenile court's findings on termination were clearly erroneous because they were not supported by evidence in the record. As a result, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the juvenile court order terminating parental rights and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Interest of A.P." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lawrence Weber, who was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Weber's driving privileges were suspended for 180 days by a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer following his refusal to take a chemical breath test after his arrest. Weber argued that he was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney, which he claimed invalidated the authority of the North Dakota Department of Transportation to revoke his driving privileges.On February 26, 2023, Weber was arrested after an onsite screening test showed a blood alcohol content of .152 percent. Following his arrest, when asked to take a chemical breath test, Weber invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and requested an attorney. Despite being given access to his phone to contact his attorney, Weber made a call to an individual who refused to help him contact his attorney. Weber did not attempt to make further calls or ask for additional time to contact his attorney.The hearing officer found that Weber refused to take the chemical breath test and had a reasonable opportunity to call an attorney. The officer's findings were upheld by the district court. Weber appealed the decision, maintaining that he was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court concluded that Weber was provided with a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney and his right to counsel was satisfied. Weber's claim that he was denied the opportunity to contact an attorney was not supported by the evidence. The court found that the hearing officer's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and her conclusion that Weber was not deprived of his right to consult counsel was in accordance with the law. View "Weber v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC), acting through the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency (NDHFA), in a dispute over a lien on a property. The property in question was part of a housing development built by the Fendee Group, and was purchased by Carinne Gould, who obtained a mortgage through Guaranteed Rate, Inc., which was later assigned to the NDIC. After Gould defaulted on her payments, both the NDIC and Fendee filed liens on the property. Fendee argued that its liens were superior to the NDHFA's mortgage, but the court ruled that since the NDHFA's lien was perfected (or legally finalized) before Fendee's liens, the NDHFA held the superior lien. The court also rejected Fendee's claim of a "super lien," which would have given it priority over all other liens, and denied Fendee's request for attorney's fees. The court found that the dispute over the super lien was a question of first impression, meaning it was the first time such a question had come before the court, and therefore the appeal was not frivolous and did not warrant attorney’s fees. View "NDIC v. Gould" on Justia Law

In this case, Jonathan Garaas and David Garaas, serving as co-trustees of multiple family trusts, appealed a dismissal of their complaint against Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., an oil company operating on land in which the trusts own mineral interests. The trusts claimed that Petro-Hunt had decreased their royalty interest without proper basis and sought both a declaratory judgment affirming their higher royalty interest and damages for underpayment. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, stating that the trusts had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before the North Dakota Industrial Commission.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the trusts needed to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing their claims to the court. The court reasoned that the issues raised by the trusts involved factual matters related to the correlative rights of landowners within the drilling unit, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission. The court held that the commission should first consider these issues, make findings of fact, and develop a complete record before the case proceeds to the district court. It further noted that, after exhausting their administrative remedies, the trusts could then bring an appropriate action for declaratory relief or damages in district court. View "Garaas v. Petro-Hunt" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Rozalyn Rinde appealed from a criminal judgment after the district court revoked her probation and resentenced her. Rinde was initially charged with five counts, including unlawful possession of a controlled substance and endangerment of a child or vulnerable adult. She pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to 360 days with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with all but 63 days suspended for two years of supervised probation. However, after multiple violations of her probation, the court revoked her probation and resentenced her to 360 days on the misdemeanor count and to five years on the felony count. Rinde argued that the court imposed an illegal sentence, exceeding the maximum penalty allowed at the time of her original offenses. She also claimed that the sentence violated the prohibition on ex post facto laws.The Supreme Court of North Dakota found that the district court had not imposed an illegal sentence. The court stated that the determining factor in applying the statute governing probation revocation (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6)) was the date of the original convictions and sentencing, not the date of the offense. Since Rinde’s original conviction and sentencing occurred after the August 2021 amendment of the statute, which removed the restriction on a court’s ability to resentence a defendant in the case of a suspended sentence, the court was not limited by the pre-amendment version of the statute. Therefore, the court was within its rights to resentence Rinde to five years on her felony count. The court also rejected Rinde's claim of an "ex post facto application," stating that the amendment did not increase the maximum possible punishment for her crime, nor did it make an innocent act criminal, aggravate the crime, or relax the evidence required to prove the offense. As such, the court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "State v. Rinde" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota had to decide whether the district court had implicitly accepted a plea agreement by accepting a guilty plea from the defendant, Devin Fischer. Fischer had initially entered a plea agreement with the State, in which he would plead guilty to a reduced charge of menacing, with the remaining charges of burglary, reckless endangerment, and tampering with physical evidence being dismissed. The district court accepted Fischer's guilty plea, but ultimately rejected the plea agreement after hearing victim impact statements and viewing video evidence of the crime. Fischer was subsequently tried and found guilty of terrorizing and reckless endangerment.Fischer appealed, arguing that by accepting his guilty plea, the district court had implicitly accepted the plea agreement. The Supreme Court of North Dakota disagreed, ruling that a court can accept a guilty plea without accepting an associated plea agreement. The court found that the district court had acted within its discretion to separately consider the guilty plea and the plea agreement.Fischer also argued that the district court judge should have recused himself after making a comment that, after viewing the video evidence, he did not see how Fischer could be found not guilty of all charges. The Supreme Court of North Dakota rejected this argument, finding that the judge had not demonstrated bias as the comments were made outside of the presence of the jury and were a necessary part of the judge's explanation for rejecting the plea agreement.The court affirmed Fischer's convictions for terrorizing and reckless endangerment, as well as the district court's denial of Fischer's motion for recusal. View "State v. Fischer" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota was tasked with reviewing a lower court's decision to grant a mother's request to relocate her children to Minnesota after she remarried. The father contested the relocation, claiming that the lower court misapplied certain factors when making its decision and placed too much emphasis on the mother's new marriage.In the original divorce settlement, the mother received primary residential responsibility, and the father was granted weekly parenting time. However, after the mother remarried and sought to move to Minnesota to live with her new husband, she requested permission from the court to relocate the children. The father opposed the move.The lower court ruled in favor of the mother, finding that the move was in the best interests of the children. The court considered the Stout-Hawkinson factors, which include the prospective advantages of the move, the integrity of the custodial parent's motive for relocation, the integrity of the noncustodial parent's motives for opposing the move, and the potential negative impact on the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child. The court found that the first two factors favored the mother, and that while the fourth factor was not in her favor, it did not outweigh the strength of the other factors.On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the lower court had not erred in its application of the Stout-Hawkinson factors, and that the evidence supported the lower court's findings. The court also rejected the father's claim that the lower court had created a "super factor" by placing too much emphasis on the mother's new marriage, noting that the lower court had considered all relevant factors in making its decision. View "Nelson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Alexander Williams, the appellant, appealed the dismissal of his petition for nonparent visitation rights to I.H.L., a child from his ex-wife's previous relationship. Williams had been a consistent caretaker of I.H.L. since 2014 and had maintained a close relationship with the child, even after his divorce from the child's mother, Stefaney Vraa. However, following a disagreement with Vraa, Williams was denied visitation rights. The district court dismissed Williams’ petition on the grounds that he had failed to establish a prima facie case for nonparent visitation, specifically that he did not satisfy the requirements of a consistent caretaker.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed and remanded the decision, concluding that Williams had indeed established a prima facie case for nonparent visitation, warranting an evidentiary hearing. The court decided that Williams had shown he was a consistent caretaker for I.H.L., having lived with and cared for the child for more than 12 months, made day-to-day decisions for the child, and established a bonded and dependent relationship with the child. The court also found that Williams had shown a substantial relationship with the child, and that denying him visitation would result in harm to the child, given the evidence of increased anxiety and distress in the child following the denial of visitation. View "Williams v. Vraa" on Justia Law