Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Edward Skorick, who has a long history of sex offenses dating back to 1980, was incarcerated and later civilly committed as a sexually dangerous individual in North Dakota. After his transfer to the state hospital in 2018, he was committed under state law in 2019. Skorick has previously petitioned for discharge from commitment, with mixed results on appeal, including a remand due to evidentiary issues and subsequent affirmances of continued commitment. In August 2024, Skorick again sought discharge, prompting an annual evaluation by a state-appointed psychologist, who recommended continued commitment. Skorick also requested an independent evaluation, but that expert did not testify or submit a report.The District Court of Burleigh County held a discharge hearing, where only the state’s expert, Dr. Byrne, testified. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Skorick remained a sexually dangerous individual with serious difficulty controlling his behavior, citing his diagnoses, risk assessments, recent behavioral infractions, lack of treatment participation, and the likelihood that his behavior would worsen outside a controlled environment. The court also drew a negative inference from Skorick’s failure to present testimony from his independent examiner.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s decision under a modified clearly erroneous standard. The Supreme Court held that the district court’s findings were sufficient and supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court distinguished Skorick’s case from others where limited infractions or lack of treatment progress were insufficient to show serious difficulty controlling behavior, emphasizing Skorick’s ongoing behavioral issues and refusal to participate in treatment. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s order denying Skorick’s petition for discharge. View "Interest of Skorick" on Justia Law

In February 2021, a contract for deed was executed between a property owner and a purchaser for two properties in Gladstone, North Dakota. The contract stipulated that the purchaser would receive title upon full and timely performance. The purchaser failed to make the required payments, prompting the owner to serve and publish a notice of cancellation in accordance with North Dakota law, which provided a six-month period to cure the default. The purchaser did not cure the default or file any affidavit asserting counterclaims or defenses during this period. After the cure period expired, the owner recorded a notice of cancellation and subsequently served the purchaser with a three-day notice of eviction when he remained in possession of the properties.The owner initiated separate eviction actions for each property in the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District. The court heard the matters together but did not consolidate them. After a hearing, the district court found that the owner had complied with statutory requirements for cancellation, that the purchaser had failed to cure the default, and that the purchaser was wrongfully retaining possession. The court excluded over 1,100 pages of evidence offered by the purchaser, finding it lacked foundation and was not relevant to the limited scope of an eviction action, which was solely to determine the right to possession. The court ordered the purchaser to vacate the properties.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that service of process was proper, the exclusion of evidence was within the district court’s discretion, and the eviction was appropriate because the contract for deed had been canceled by operation of law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of eviction. View "Cache Private Capital Diversified Fund v. Braddock" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with murder and contributing to the delinquency of a minor after allegedly killing his wife in their home while their two young children were present. Before trial, the prosecution requested that the children be allowed to testify remotely, arguing that testifying in the defendant’s presence would cause them significant emotional distress and impair their ability to communicate. The district court held hearings, received testimony from mental health professionals who had treated the children, and ultimately granted the State’s motion, finding that remote testimony was necessary to prevent serious emotional trauma to the children.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, presided over the case. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of contributing to the deprivation of a minor, and the murder charge proceeded to trial. The court instructed the jury that the children’s remote testimony was permissible by law and should not influence their deliberations. The children testified via two-way electronic communication, and the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The court entered a judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole. The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court failed to make the findings required by statute for remote testimony and that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court made the necessary findings under North Dakota Century Code § 31-04-04.2(1), specifically that testifying in the defendant’s presence would likely cause the children serious emotional distress or trauma impacting their ability to communicate. The Supreme Court found these findings were supported by the evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The court concluded that the defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated and affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Moen" on Justia Law

In 2006, an individual was civilly committed to the North Dakota State Hospital as a sexually dangerous person. Over the years, he repeatedly sought discharge from commitment, with several applications denied and those denials affirmed on appeal. In July 2024, he again applied for discharge. The State’s expert, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified at a review hearing, while the individual’s independent examiner did not testify. The individual’s girlfriend, a former hospital employee, also testified. The district court found that the individual’s antisocial personality disorder and history of sexually predatory conduct made him likely to reoffend, and concluded he would have serious difficulty controlling his sexual behavior if released. The court ordered continued commitment in January 2025.The individual appealed the district court’s order to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that the court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. He did not challenge the court’s findings on the statutory elements required for civil commitment, but contended that the court’s findings on his ability to control his behavior were conclusory and unsupported by specific evidence. While the appeal was pending, he filed another application for discharge, but the Supreme Court’s review was limited to the January 2025 order.The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court failed to make sufficiently specific findings of fact regarding whether the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior, as required by substantive due process and precedent. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further specific findings on this issue, unless the pending application for discharge renders the matter moot. View "Interest of Hoff" on Justia Law

Jonathan Guthmiller was convicted of failing to register as a sexual offender, a requirement stemming from his 2017 guilty plea to luring a minor by computer. Under North Dakota law, he was obligated to register twice yearly and to update his registration within three days of any change in his phone number. In September 2024, Guthmiller was charged for failing to register a valid phone number and for not completing his August 2024 registration.The case was tried in the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District. Before trial, the State proposed jury instructions that did not include the location of the offense as an essential element, citing State v. Samaniego. Guthmiller did not submit alternative instructions or object to the State’s proposal. At a status conference, the court explained the instructions to Guthmiller, who confirmed his understanding and explicitly stated he had no objection. Guthmiller represented himself at trial and did not move for acquittal. The jury found him guilty.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota, Guthmiller argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, specifically contending the State failed to prove the conduct occurred in Grand Forks County or North Dakota. He also challenged the jury instructions for omitting the location element. The Supreme Court held that Guthmiller had waived any objection to the jury instructions by affirmatively agreeing to them at trial. As a result, the instructions became the law of the case, and the State was not required to prove the location of the offense. The Court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict and affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Guthmiller" on Justia Law

A juvenile, K.I.B., was adjudicated delinquent in June 2024 by the Juvenile Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, for promoting a sexual performance by a minor and possession of prohibited materials, both felonies under North Dakota law, as well as giving false information to law enforcement. In January 2025, the court held a hearing to determine whether K.I.B. was required to register as a sexual offender. The court found that K.I.B. had no prior sexual offender offenses and did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct during the commission of the offenses, and therefore exempted K.I.B. from the registration requirement.The State appealed the exemption order to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in interpreting its discretion under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15. The State asserted its standing to appeal based on statutory language and public safety interests. The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory interpretation de novo, focusing on whether the juvenile court had discretion to exempt K.I.B. from registration under the relevant statute.The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(a) mandates registration for individuals adjudicated as felonious sexual offenders, including juveniles, unless the offense falls under a specific exception listed in subdivision (c), which did not apply to K.I.B. The court concluded that the juvenile court misapplied the law and abused its discretion by exempting K.I.B. from registration. The Supreme Court reversed the juvenile court’s order and remanded the case for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion, requiring K.I.B. to register as a sexual offender. View "Interest of K.I.B." on Justia Law

Taylor Kraft was charged in two separate criminal cases in Burleigh County, North Dakota, with multiple counts of theft and unauthorized use of personal identifying information. The cases were joined for trial, and in October 2024, Kraft, represented by counsel, pled guilty to all charges. In March 2025, Kraft filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and other grounds.The State responded to Kraft’s application by filing an answer and a motion for summary dismissal in April 2025. The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, granted the State’s motion on May 2, 2025, summarily dismissing Kraft’s application for postconviction relief. Kraft appealed, arguing that he was not given the required thirty days to respond to the State’s motion, as mandated when a motion for summary disposition is filed.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and determined that, although the State labeled its motion as one for summary dismissal, it actually argued and relied upon the summary disposition (summary judgment) standard. The district court also applied the summary disposition standard in its ruling. Under North Dakota law, when a motion for summary disposition is filed, the applicant must be given thirty days to respond. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred by not providing Kraft the required response time. The order summarily dismissing Kraft’s application for postconviction relief was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Kraft v. State" on Justia Law

Anthony Campbell was convicted of murder in 2016 following a jury trial. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Campbell filed an application for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the existence of newly discovered evidence that would warrant a new trial. His claims included that his trial counsel failed to investigate alternative suspects, call certain witnesses, obtain and preserve cell phone records, object to improper character evidence, challenge courtroom closures, address juror and prosecutorial misconduct, request independent forensic testing, and submit lesser included offenses for jury consideration. He also argued that his counsel had a conflict of interest and violated attorney-client privilege.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, initially dismissed Campbell’s postconviction application summarily. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed that dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the district court denied Campbell’s application, finding he failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel or the existence of newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial. The court found that Campbell’s counsel’s actions were within the bounds of reasonable professional judgment and that Campbell did not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for the alleged errors. The court also found no evidence of a conflict of interest or violation of attorney-client privilege, and determined that the alleged newly discovered evidence was known at trial and not material.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and legal conclusions de novo. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order, holding that Campbell failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel or the existence of newly discovered evidence, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying postconviction relief. View "Campbell v. State" on Justia Law

Two individuals, both advanced practice registered nurses at a pain management clinic, were charged with multiple felonies, including reckless endangerment and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. The State alleged that they overprescribed controlled substances, creating a substantial risk of serious harm to patients. In each case, the State later reached a civil settlement with the defendant and moved to dismiss the criminal charges with prejudice, citing the resolution of the issues through the civil agreement.The North Central Judicial District Court, presided over by Judge Gary Lee, denied the State’s motions to dismiss. The court interpreted North Dakota’s compromise statutes as prohibiting the State from dismissing felony charges based on a civil settlement, and found by clear and convincing evidence that dismissal would be against the public interest. In one case, after the denial, the State attempted to withdraw its motion to dismiss, but the district court did not issue an order recognizing the withdrawal, and the denial remained in effect.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case on a petition for a supervisory writ. The court held that the compromise statutes apply only to misdemeanors or infractions and do not bar the State from seeking dismissal of felony charges under N.D.R.Crim.P. 48(a). The court further held that a district court’s discretion to deny a prosecutor’s motion to dismiss under Rule 48(a) is limited; unless the prosecutor is acting in bad faith or for an improper motive, the court should not deny the motion based on its own assessment of the public interest. The Supreme Court concluded that Judge Lee misinterpreted the statutes and abused his discretion, granted the State’s petition, and directed the district court to reverse its orders denying dismissal. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

Several individuals and organizations, including landowners and agricultural groups, challenged North Dakota statutes governing the underground storage of carbon dioxide and oil or gas, as well as laws permitting pre-condemnation surveys on private property. The plaintiffs own or represent owners of “pore space” in underground geological formations, which is used for carbon dioxide sequestration projects overseen by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC). The plaintiffs argued that the statutes authorizing amalgamation of pore space and pre-condemnation surveys violate constitutional protections against uncompensated takings and due process, and that certain statutory provisions constitute an improper delegation of legislative power.The District Court of Bottineau County granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a six-year statute of limitations, as the claims were facial challenges to statutes enacted more than six years prior. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the oil and gas storage law was not viable as a facial challenge because it depended on future actions and factual circumstances. The court did not reach the merits of the constitutional claims.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the provision allowing the NDIC to grant exceptions (N.D.C.C. § 38-22-03(7)) and the oil and gas storage amalgamation law (N.D.C.C. ch. 38-25), as they had not shown actual or threatened injury. However, the court found that the plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the carbon dioxide storage amalgamation provisions (N.D.C.C. ch. 38-22). The court ruled that the district court erred in dismissing these claims as time-barred, as the claims accrued when the NDIC acted under the statutes, not when the statutes were enacted. The court affirmed dismissal of the pre-condemnation survey law claims, but on the basis of binding precedent, not the statute of limitations. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Northwest Landowners Association v. State" on Justia Law