Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kyle Woodman was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition in Stark County, North Dakota, in April 2022. A jury trial was held in September 2023, and Woodman was found guilty on all counts. In January 2024, the district court sentenced him to twenty years in prison for count one (with all but five years suspended for ten years), and seven and a half years each for counts two and three, with all sentences running consecutively.Woodman appealed, arguing that the district court committed obvious error by not including the essential element that the crimes occurred in North Dakota in the jury instructions, that the prosecutor committed obvious error during closing arguments by creating evidence, incorporating personal beliefs, and vouching for witnesses, and that the district court relied on an impermissible factor (a pending charge) in determining the severity of his sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It concluded that Woodman failed to establish obvious error regarding the jury instructions, as the instructions, when read together, adequately informed the jury that the offenses had to occur in Stark County, North Dakota. The court also found that Woodman did not demonstrate that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments constituted obvious error affecting his substantial rights, as the jury was instructed to rely on their own recollection of the evidence and disregard any unsupported statements by the attorneys. Lastly, the court determined that Woodman did not show that the district court substantially relied on the pending charge in determining the severity of his sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the amended criminal judgment. View "State v. Woodman" on Justia Law

Randall Moe executed a Last Will and Testament in 1989, shortly after ending a relationship with Cynthia Almer. The will included provisions to bequeath all his property to Almer, with a contingent bequest to his daughter, Amanda Miller, if Almer predeceased him. Moe also designated Almer as the guardian for Miller and the personal representative of his estate. Moe passed away in July 2022, and Miller was appointed as the personal representative of his estate. Almer later filed a petition for formal probate and to set aside Miller’s appointment, while Miller sought to reform the will to reflect Moe’s intent to pass his estate to her.The District Court of Williams County held a bench trial and found the will valid and enforceable but concluded it was affected by a mistake of law or fact. The court reformed the will to state that Almer would hold Moe’s property in trust for Miller if she was a minor at the time of his death, otherwise, the property would go to Miller outright. The court also appointed Miller as the personal representative of the estate.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its findings. The Supreme Court concluded that the will was not inconsistent and that the extrinsic evidence considered by the district court did not relate to Moe’s intent at the time he executed the will. The Supreme Court held that the district court misapplied the law by considering post-execution evidence unrelated to Moe’s intent when he executed the will. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment reforming Moe’s will. View "Estate of Moe" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Jordan Juneau was charged in Wells County with attempted murder, armed robbery, and burglary. Later that month, he was charged in Stutsman County with unauthorized use of personal identifying information. In July 2022, he faced additional charges in Stutsman County for theft of property and criminal mischief. On May 10, 2023, Juneau entered Alford pleas in the Stutsman County cases based on a binding plea agreement, which stipulated he would not receive a sentence exceeding four years. The district court accepted his pleas but deferred sentencing to a different judge, who could accept or reject the plea agreement.At the August 24, 2023 hearing, the sentencing judge treated Juneau’s plea as an open plea and sentenced him to five years, exceeding the agreed-upon four-year limit. Juneau applied for postconviction relief in September 2023, arguing his sentence was illegal as it did not adhere to the plea agreement. The State did not oppose a remand for further dispositional hearings. However, the district court denied Juneau’s application, finding the nature of the plea agreement unclear and concluding he failed to establish his sentence was illegal.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found the district court’s determination that Juneau’s plea agreement was unclear to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court held that Juneau’s sentence was illegal because it did not comply with the binding plea agreement. The court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to determine the terms of the plea agreement and either accept or reject it in compliance with Rule 11(c). If the terms cannot be determined, Juneau must be allowed to withdraw his pleas in the relevant case. View "Juneau v. State" on Justia Law

Ryan Eldon Greene was charged with eleven sexual offenses involving his 15-year-old daughter, who was visiting him in North Dakota during the summer of 2023. The charges included luring minors by computers, incest, corruption of a minor, sexual assault, and solicitation of a minor. Greene pled guilty to all charges on an open plea basis, and the district court sentenced him to a total of 50 years' imprisonment, with some sentences suspended subject to probation.The District Court of Grand Forks County accepted Greene's guilty plea, finding a sufficient factual basis for all charges. Greene was sentenced to five years for each of the ten class C felonies, to run consecutively, and 227 days for the class A misdemeanor, with credit for time served. The sentences for five of the felonies were suspended, contingent on Greene completing ten years of supervised probation.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed Greene's appeal, in which he argued that his convictions and sentences were multiplicitous and violated the Fifth Amendment, and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The court held that by pleading guilty, Greene waived his right to appeal on the grounds of multiplicity. Additionally, the court found that Greene's sentence was within statutory limits and not grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed. The court concluded that Greene's sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment or the North Dakota Constitution.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment, upholding Greene's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Greene" on Justia Law

Mark Nelson, operating North Country Weatherization Technologies, provided ice removal services to Pine View First Addition Association, a Minnesota non-profit homeowners' association, in spring 2023. Pine View's property manager, a North Dakota LLC, contacted Nelson for urgent ice removal due to water damage. Nelson completed the work and invoiced Pine View, but payment was delayed, allegedly due to Pine View's attempt to have insurance cover the costs. Nelson filed a lawsuit in North Dakota for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, seeking $79,695 plus interest and attorney’s fees.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, granted Pine View's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that North Dakota did not have jurisdiction over Pine View, as it is a Minnesota entity and the services were performed in Minnesota. The court also denied Pine View's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Nelson and his attorney, as well as Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that North Dakota has specific personal jurisdiction over Pine View because Pine View, through its North Dakota-based property manager, initiated contact with Nelson for the ice removal services. The court found that Pine View's contacts with North Dakota were sufficient to satisfy the state's long-arm provision and due process requirements. The Supreme Court also determined that the district court abused its discretion in denying Nelson's request for prevailing party attorney’s fees under Rule 11(c)(2), as Pine View's motion for sanctions against Nelson violated Rule 11(c)(5)(A). The case was remanded for further proceedings and to determine the amount of attorney’s fees Nelson is owed. View "Nelson v. Pine View First Addition Association" on Justia Law

Jacob Hollingsworth filed for divorce from Katie Hollingsworth after nearly five years of marriage. They had one child and stipulated to a parenting plan, leaving the division of marital property, spousal support, and attorney’s fees as the issues for trial. Katie entered the marriage with significant debt and a house, while Jacob had a house, personal assets, and business interests. They kept separate finances except for a joint account for shared expenses. Jacob paid off much of Katie’s debt during the marriage.The District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, heard testimony from both parties, two valuation experts, and Jacob’s father. The court awarded Jacob 92% and Katie 8% of the marital assets, denied Katie’s requests for spousal support and attorney’s fees, and allowed Jacob’s valuation expert to testify despite a late report disclosure. Katie appealed the decisions.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It upheld the district court’s decision to allow the expert testimony, noting that the court offered a continuance, which Katie declined. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of the late disclosure.The Supreme Court also affirmed the district court’s valuation and division of the marital estate, finding the valuations were within the range of evidence presented and the unequal distribution was justified by the parties’ financial contributions and spending habits. The court upheld the use of the agreed valuation date for assets and found no error in including interim order funds in the marital estate.The court found no clear error in denying spousal support, as both parties were capable of self-support. It also upheld the denial of attorney’s fees, noting Katie’s sufficient income and excessive spending habits. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects. View "Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

KNB Properties LLC and Delta Dawn, LLP, appealed a judgment and an order denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment. They argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Cass County. The case revolves around whether KNB needed the County’s approval under its subdivision ordinance for its development of an unplatted parcel of land in Stanley Township, which KNB bought in October 2017. KNB constructed a commercial building on the parcel and later subdivided it into two parcels, conveying one to Delta Dawn by warranty deed in 2021.The District Court of Cass County initially denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, finding disputed issues of material fact. Later, it granted the County’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that KNB’s creation of two auditor’s lots and the conveyance of one lot to Delta Dawn in 2021 triggered the subdivision ordinance. The court issued a permanent injunction requiring compliance with the subdivision ordinance before any further development, sale, or transfer of the parcel. KNB and Delta Dawn’s counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the subdivision ordinance was not violated until the act of subdivision in 2021. The court held that the County’s authority was not implicated until KNB platted the parcel into two parcels and conveyed one to Delta Dawn. The court found that the district court erred in granting a permanent injunction and that the proper remedy was to void the conveyance of the 12.451-acre parcel to Delta Dawn, thus restoring the KNB parcel to its original size. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment and remanded with instructions to enter an amended judgment vacating the auditor’s lots and restoring the parties to their original positions. View "Cass Co. v. KNB Properties" on Justia Law

McKenzie Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("McKenzie Electric") petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ to direct the district court to vacate its order of recusal, deny the motion for recusal, and reassign the case back to Judge El-Dweek. The case began in November 2019, and in July 2020, Judge El-Dweek disclosed his membership in McKenzie Electric. Discovery continued through 2023, and McKenzie Electric disclosed it was seeking significant damages. In May 2024, the respondents filed a motion for a change of venue due to potential juror bias. Following a hearing, the respondents filed a motion for recusal, which Judge El-Dweek granted, citing the appearance of impropriety.The district court's decision to recuse was based on the judge's membership in McKenzie Electric and the potential financial interest he might have in the case's outcome. The respondents argued that the judge's financial interest created a reasonable question regarding his impartiality. The district court agreed and granted the motion for recusal, despite acknowledging the timing of the motion was suspect.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the petition for a supervisory writ. The court emphasized that supervisory writs are issued rarely and cautiously, only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The court concluded that the claimed injustice, primarily stemming from delay, could not be remedied by granting the writ. The court also noted that any error in granting or denying recusal could be addressed on appeal. Consequently, the North Dakota Supreme Court denied McKenzie Electric's petition for a supervisory writ, finding that this case did not warrant the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. View "McKenzie Electric Coop., Inc. v. El-Dweek" on Justia Law

In April 2022, H.H., the mother of A.E.E., was arrested for the murder of A.E.E.'s father. H.H. provided written consent for A.E.E. to be placed with the maternal aunt and uncle, A.V. and E.V., as emergency co-guardians. The maternal aunt and uncle filed a petition to be appointed as emergency and permanent co-guardians, which the paternal grandparents, K.B. and T.B., opposed, seeking guardianship themselves. The juvenile court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as emergency co-guardians pending a full hearing. After a full hearing, the court appointed the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians, and the paternal grandparents did not appeal.Following H.H.'s conviction for murder and her life sentence without parole, the maternal aunt and uncle sought to relocate out of state with A.E.E. The paternal grandparents opposed this motion and sought to remove the maternal aunt and uncle as co-guardians. The juvenile court granted the relocation and denied the motion to remove the co-guardians, finding that the reasons for the original appointment had not changed and that it was in A.E.E.'s best interests to remain under their guardianship.The paternal grandparents appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing that the juvenile court erred in its decision, citing H.H.'s conviction and alleging false testimony by the maternal aunt and uncle. They also requested a presumption against appointing family members of a parent convicted of murdering the other parent as guardians. The Supreme Court of North Dakota held that the juvenile court's findings were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the denial of the motion to modify the guardianship, concluding that the paternal grandparents failed to prove that removal or modification of the guardianship was in A.E.E.'s best interests. View "Interest of A.E.E." on Justia Law

Barry Lindeman was convicted of gross sexual imposition in January 2021 and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment with ten years suspended, along with fifty years of probation. On direct appeal, the conviction and sentence were summarily affirmed. In February 2022, Lindeman filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial attorneys failed to file a motion to suppress his confessions and did not request funding to retain an expert witness to testify about the veracity of the confessions.The District Court of Ward County granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, finding that Lindeman failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or substantial prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lindeman did not provide any evidence that he was substantially prejudiced by his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Specifically, Lindeman did not explain why or how he would have prevailed on a motion to suppress his confessions. Additionally, he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to retain an expert witness, as he did not demonstrate how the expert's testimony would have been favorable or affected the trial's outcome. The court concluded that Lindeman's conclusory allegations were insufficient to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Lindeman v. State" on Justia Law