Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kyle Zittleman and ShanaLea Bibler were married in 2010 and had one child in 2012. They divorced in 2016, with a Wyoming court granting Zittleman primary residential responsibility. Bibler filed motions to modify residential responsibility and child support in 2018 and 2020, but Zittleman retained primary responsibility. Zittleman moved to North Dakota in 2019, and Bibler followed in 2022. In 2023, Bibler again moved to modify residential responsibility, citing her relocation, Zittleman’s alleged non-compliance with a judgment, and the child's worsening demeanor.The Morton County district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2024, limiting each party to two and a half hours for their case. Bibler used all her time before cross-examining two witnesses and argued this violated her due process rights. The district court found no material change in circumstances and denied her motion. Bibler appealed, claiming the time limitation and the court's findings were erroneous.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for constitutional claims and under an abuse of discretion standard for procedural matters. The court found that the district court did not violate due process by limiting the hearing time, as both parties were notified and did not object or request additional time. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the time limitation.The Supreme Court upheld the district court's finding that there was no material change in circumstances. The court noted that Bibler's move to North Dakota, Zittleman’s adherence to the judgment, and allegations of alienation did not constitute a material change. The court also found that the district court did not err in omitting a best interests analysis, as it was not required without a material change in circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Bibler's motion to modify residential responsibility. View "Zittleman v. Bibler" on Justia Law

Sarah Shively initiated divorce proceedings against Kyle Shively, seeking primary residential responsibility for their three school-age children. The marital home, which was Kyle's family farmstead, is located in Pleasant Lake, North Dakota. During the separation, Kyle moved to Rugby, North Dakota. Both parties proposed different parenting plans, with Sarah seeking primary residential responsibility and Kyle seeking either primary or equal residential responsibility.The District Court of Benson County, Northeast Judicial District, held a two-day bench trial and awarded Sarah primary residential responsibility and the marital home. Kyle appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decisions regarding residential responsibility, parenting time, and the distribution of the marital home.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found that the district court failed to provide sufficient specificity in its findings to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions. The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the district court's findings, particularly regarding the best interest factors for awarding primary residential responsibility. The district court's findings were contradictory, and it did not adequately explain why equal residential responsibility was not considered.Additionally, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not address summer parenting time for Kyle, despite acknowledging its importance. The district court also failed to explain its decision to award the marital home to Sarah, despite the sentimental value and origin of the property being significant factors.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the court’s decisions regarding primary residential responsibility, parenting time, and property distribution. View "Shively v. Shively" on Justia Law

Scott Neil Krebs was charged with driving under the influence. After a jury found him guilty, Krebs renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The district court of Barnes County, Southeast Judicial District, granted Krebs' motion, setting aside the jury's guilty verdict and entering a judgment of acquittal.The State of North Dakota appealed the district court's decision, arguing that the court's order should be considered an "order quashing an information" under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(1), which would allow the State to appeal. Alternatively, the State petitioned for a supervisory writ to vacate the judgment of acquittal and reinstate the jury's verdict.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and concluded that the district court's decision was a true judgment of acquittal because it resolved a factual element of the offense, specifically the sufficiency of the evidence to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the State could not appeal the judgment of acquittal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.Additionally, the Supreme Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, noting that such authority is discretionary and reserved for extraordinary cases where no adequate alternative exists. The court found that this case did not present extraordinary circumstances justifying supervisory intervention, as Krebs had timely renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, and the district court had the authority to grant it. The court emphasized that routinely granting writs in similar situations would undermine the strict limitations on appeals by the State. View "State v. Krebs" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) issued a notice ending benefits for Russell C. Jones, who had been receiving them due to a work-related injury in Mountrail County. The matter proceeded to a telephonic hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) with participants in different locations: the ALJ in Minnesota, Jones in Wisconsin, Jones’s attorney in Bismarck, and WSI’s attorney in Fargo. The ALJ left the record open for a physician to provide deposition testimony from Bismarck and ultimately reversed WSI’s decision. WSI then filed a notice of appeal with the district court in Burleigh County.The district court in Burleigh County dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, agreeing with Jones’s argument that the court lacked jurisdiction because he did not reside there and his injury did not occur there. WSI appealed this dismissal.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and determined that the district court in Burleigh County had jurisdiction under the default rules set out by the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. The court found that since part of the administrative hearing was held in Bismarck, the district court in Burleigh County was an appropriate venue for the appeal. The court concluded that Title 65 of the North Dakota Century Code did not specify where WSI must appeal, and thus the default provisions of N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32 applied. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Jones" on Justia Law

Said Ali was charged with eight counts of possession of certain prohibited materials, specifically videos containing sexual conduct by a minor. Before the trial, Ali filed a motion in limine to exclude the videos and related witness testimony, arguing they were inadmissible under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. The district court denied this motion. Subsequently, Ali, his attorney, and the State signed a stipulation for conditional guilty pleas, intending to reserve Ali's right to appeal the court's ruling on the motion in limine. Ali pled guilty to all eight counts, and a criminal judgment was entered.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Theodore T. Sandberg, handled the initial proceedings. After the denial of the motion in limine, Ali entered his guilty pleas, which were intended to be conditional based on the stipulation signed by the parties. However, the criminal judgment did not specify that the pleas were conditional, and no transcript of the change of plea hearing was provided to confirm the conditional nature of the pleas.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that Rule 11(a)(2) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for conditional guilty pleas if specified in writing and accepted by the court. However, the judgment did not indicate that Ali's pleas were conditional, and there was no transcript to support this claim. Consequently, the court concluded that Ali failed to preserve the issue for appeal because the record did not reflect that his guilty pleas were conditional. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment, holding that Ali did not demonstrate that he entered conditional guilty pleas, thus the underlying issue was not preserved for review. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

Sarah Knell and Catlin Kinden, who married in 2003 and have four children, divorced in October 2020. They initially agreed to share equal residential responsibility for their children, with the children spending most of the school year with Knell. Conflicts arose, particularly regarding the medical care of their two minor children, B.K. and P.K., who require medication. Kinden meticulously monitored P.K.'s diabetes care, often initiating conflicts with Knell over it. In July 2021, Kinden moved to modify residential responsibility, alleging Knell's disregard for the children's health. The district court ordered mediation, which was unsuccessful.In December 2021, Knell filed a countermotion to modify residential responsibility. The parties agreed to a parenting investigation, which did not recommend changing their equal residential responsibility. They signed a stipulation to modify the judgment, which the court adopted in September 2022. In 2023, Kinden moved to Bismarck, prompting Knell to seek primary residential responsibility, arguing that the two-year moratorium on modifications did not apply due to Kinden's relocation. Both parties made prima facie cases for modification, leading to an evidentiary hearing in July 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming the district court's decision. The court found that N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6, which governs modifications of primary residential responsibility, did not apply as there was no prior order establishing primary residential responsibility. Instead, the court made an original determination based on the best interests of the children, weighing the factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1). The court concluded that awarding Kinden primary residential responsibility was in the children's best interests, particularly due to his diligence in addressing their medical and educational needs. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's findings and affirmed the second amended judgment. View "Kinden v. Kinden" on Justia Law

An unmarried couple, K.L.T. and M.O.J., filed a petition on September 27, 2024, to adopt three children who had been in their care since early 2022. The Cass County District Court denied their petition on October 8, 2024, citing North Dakota Century Code § 14-15-03(2), which the court interpreted as not permitting unmarried couples to jointly adopt. The case was subsequently dismissed.Following the dismissal, K.L.T. and M.O.J. moved for reconsideration on October 14, 2024. Although the district court found them to be suitable adoptive parents, it denied the motion for reconsideration. The court then certified a question to the North Dakota Supreme Court, asking whether an unmarried couple can adopt children under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-03(2), noting the absence of controlling precedent in North Dakota.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed whether to answer the certified question. Under Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court has the discretion to answer certified questions of law if they are determinative of the proceeding and if there is no controlling precedent. However, the court determined that answering the certified question would be purely advisory since the petition had been dismissed and the time to appeal had expired. Consequently, there was no existing case that could be resolved by answering the question.The North Dakota Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question and dismissed the proceeding. View "K.L.T. v. NDDHHS" on Justia Law

In March 2023, the State charged Christopher Allman with multiple counts of domestic violence, felonious restraint, and terrorizing, alleging he assaulted his wife and their live-in girlfriend, locked them in a room, and refused to let them leave. The parties agreed Allman would undergo a mental health examination to determine his criminal responsibility. The examination was delayed due to issues with obtaining Allman’s records from the Veterans Administration. The evaluation, completed in August 2024, concluded Allman did not suffer from a mental condition precluding criminal liability. A jury trial in August 2024 resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts, and Allman was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment, with credit for time served on one count.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, oversaw the initial proceedings. Allman appealed, arguing errors related to the criminal responsibility evaluation, his fitness to stand trial, his right to a speedy trial, and the legality of his sentence. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the evaluation order, asserting it was against his will and violated his right against self-incrimination. He also argued the court should have ordered a fitness evaluation and that his right to a speedy trial was denied due to the delays in obtaining his mental health records.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in ordering the criminal responsibility evaluation because the parties had stipulated to it. The court found no grounds to doubt Allman’s fitness to stand trial and noted he did not request a fitness evaluation. The court also determined that Allman’s right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were not due to the State’s conduct, and Allman did not properly assert his right. Finally, the court affirmed the legality of Allman’s sentence, rejecting his argument about credit for time served. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

Cody Lee Littleghost was arrested in February 2023 for spitting on two officers and was charged with two counts of contact by bodily fluid and one count of attempted contact by bodily fluid. The attempted contact charge was dismissed. In June 2023, he was arrested again for shoplifting and spitting on an officer, leading to charges of failure to halt and contact by bodily fluids.The District Court of Cass County denied Littleghost's motions to suppress statements made to police, claiming he was not properly Mirandized. He pleaded guilty to all counts of contact by bodily fluids, reserving the right to appeal the suppression motions. The district court accepted his guilty pleas.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Littleghost argued that the district court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 by accepting his guilty plea for the February charges without an adequate factual basis. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not make an inquiry to ensure a factual basis for the plea, which is required under Rule 11(b)(3). The court concluded that this was an obvious error affecting Littleghost's substantial rights, as it called into question the validity of his plea.Regarding the June charges, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, finding no incriminating statements were made by Littleghost prior to being Mirandized. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment in the February case due to the lack of a factual basis for the guilty plea and affirmed the judgment in the June case, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Littleghost" on Justia Law

Cody Lee Littleghost was arrested in February 2023 for spitting on two officers and was charged with two counts of contact by bodily fluid and one count of attempted contact by bodily fluid. The attempted contact charge was dismissed. In June 2023, he was arrested again for shoplifting and spitting on an officer, leading to charges of failure to halt and contact by bodily fluids.The District Court of Cass County denied Littleghost's motions to suppress statements made to police, claiming he was not properly Mirandized. He pleaded guilty to all counts of contact by bodily fluids, reserving the right to appeal the suppression motions. The district court accepted his guilty pleas, and Littleghost appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Littleghost argued that the district court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 by accepting his guilty plea for the February charges without an adequate factual basis. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not make an inquiry to ensure a factual basis for the plea, which is required by Rule 11(b)(3). The court concluded that this was an obvious error affecting Littleghost's substantial rights, as it called into question the validity of his plea.Regarding the June charges, the Supreme Court upheld the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding no incriminating statements were made by Littleghost before being Mirandized. The court found sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings.The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment in the February case due to the lack of a factual basis for the guilty plea and affirmed the judgment in the June case, upholding the denial of the motion to suppress. View "State v. Littleghost" on Justia Law