Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Victoria Fietzek and Henry Fietzek cross-appealed a divorce judgment. Victoria argued the district court erred in: (1) its Ruff-Fischer analysis; (2) the distribution of the marital estate; (3) the valuation of the assets; (4) finding Henry did not commit economic waste; (5) limiting the duration of spousal support; and (6) in not awarding attorney’s fees to her. Henry argued only that the district court erred in the duration and amount of spousal support awarded to Victoria. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s Ruff-Fischer analysis, the court’s findings of fact in regard to the equitable distribution of the martial estate, the court’s finding that Henry did not commit economic waste, and the court’s denial of attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court reversed the order for spousal support and remanded for the district court to make additional findings regarding spousal support and, if necessary, reconsider the allocation of property. View "Fietzek v. Fietzek" on Justia Law

Travis Smith was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. Smith argued questions from the State during trial amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and burden shifting. Smith further argued the district court violated his constitutional right to a public trial, and abused its discretion by admitting cumulative and improperly noticed expert testimony. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Smith" on Justia Law

Demoris Frederick was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. Frederick argued the district court created a structural error by denying his constitutional right to a public trial, and created a reversible error by conducting voir dire off the record, making a transcript of the jury selection unavailable. Because Frederick did not demonstrate any portion of trial was held privately, or that the public was asked to leave the courtroom or was not allowed in, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded his right to a public trial was not violated. Because Frederick also had not demonstrated an error affecting his substantial rights when the district court failed to create an adequate record during a bench conference in open court, the Court concluded he failed to demonstrate obvious error. The Court therefore affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Frederick" on Justia Law

Brian Schaf was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition and disorderly conduct. Schaf argued on appeal that the district court: (1) abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony; (2) erred in denying Schaf’s request for a lesser included offense of sexual assault; and (3) erred by incorrectly instructing the jury that consideration of Schaf’s intoxication was limited to one element of gross sexual imposition. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schaf" on Justia Law

Benjamin Hannesson appealed his convictions for gross sexual imposition, burglary, theft of property, terrorizing, felonious restraint, and two counts of physical obstruction of a government function. The charges were based on an incident that occurred near Walhalla, North Dakota. The State alleged Hannesson broke into a woman’s home in the middle of the night, restrained her, sexually assaulted her, stole money, and threatened to slit her throat if she called the police. Appealing to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Hannesson argued the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts and his right to due process was violated by prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Hannesson's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Hannesson" on Justia Law

Workforce Safety and Insurance (“WSI”) and John Sandberg appealed a district court judgment affirming in part and reversing in part an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision on remand, entered after the North Dakota Supreme Court's decision in State by & through Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Sandberg (“Sandberg II”), 956 N.W.2d 342. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined the ALJ had made conflicting and insufficient findings to support the finding that Sandberg’s claim was compensable and it was “unable to reconcile the ALJ’s decision with the statutory requirements for medical evidence supported by objective medical findings for a compensable injury in N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(10).” On remand, the ALJ made additional findings and again held Sandberg met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had sustained a compensable injury. WSI appealed to the district court and the court affirmed the ALJ’s order. On the second appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the “judgment affirming the ALJ’s revised order to the extent the order found Sandberg sustained a compensable injury; however, the Court remand[ed] the case to WSI for further proceedings on whether benefits must be awarded on an aggravation basis under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-15.” On remand, WSI reversed its decision and accepted Sandberg’s claim on an aggravation basis and denied Sandberg disability benefits. Sandberg appealed to the district court, which affirmed WSI’s determination to award benefits on an aggravation basis and reversed the ALJ’s affirmance of WSI’s denial of disability benefits concluding WSI exceeded the scope of remand provided in Sandberg II. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in finding WSI exceeded the scope of the remand and in reversing the ALJ's order affirming WSI's denial of disability benefits. The Court affirmed the district court affirmance of the ALJ’s order awarding benefits on an aggravation basis under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-15. The Court reinstated the ALJ’s order affirming WSI’s denial of disability benefits. View "Sandberg v. WSI, et al." on Justia Law

Johnny Beach, the former personal representative of the estate of Louis Lindbo, appealed a district court order denying his motion for payment of personal representative fees. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court abused its discretion in denying the motion. View "Estate of Lindbo" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order directing him to have no contact with Kayla Jones for one year. In 2013, Rath and Jones divorced. Together they had two children. In July 2022, Jones filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order after Rath sent numerous e-mails to Jones, her attorney, and her employer during a short period of time. A temporary restraining order was issued. In August 2022, a hearing was held and the district court granted a disorderly conduct restraining order against Rath. Rath argued the court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing within fourteen days of issuing the temporary restraining order. He argued the court abused its discretion by granting a restraining order even though Jones’s petition did not comply with N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-01(3). He also argued the court abused its discretion by issuing the disorderly conduct restraining order without sufficient findings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Jones v. Rath" on Justia Law

Michael Neugebauer appealed a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction. In 1992, Neugebauer was charged with four counts of murder. Neugebauer pled guilty to all counts and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count, running concurrently. On October 5, 2020, Neugebauer moved for a reduction of his sentence under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1. After a hearing, the court denied his motion, concluding N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1 did not apply retroactively. Neugebauer argued to the North Dakota Supreme Court that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1 should apply retroactively. He acknowledged the Court's holding in Garcia v. North Dakota, 925 N.W.2d 442, but argued its analysis “negates the very essence of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-13.1” and “presumes an idle act by the Legislature.” He also argued the application of the ameliorative penal legislation exception to the general rule against retroactivity applied because this case was not lessening punishment; it was simply giving an avenue to specific individuals to move the court for a reduction in sentence. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Neugebauer" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Health and Human Services1 appealed a district court judgment reversing the Department’s order affirming the denial of Joseph Jahner’s application to enroll as a Medicaid provider. n December 2020, Jahner applied with the Department to be an enrolled provider with North Dakota Medicaid as a peer support specialist. In June 2021, the Department denied Jahner’s application. The Department stated its Medicare Provider Enrollment Screening Policy (“1915(i) Policy”) prohibited Jahner “from enrolling as a provider with ND Medicaid” because of his criminal history. Between 2002 and 2017, Jahner was convicted of 13 crimes, including negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, assault, and menacing. After the hearing, the ALJ recommended reversing the Department’s decision, concluding the Department should have done a thorough review of Jahner’s criminal history to determine if any offenses had a direct bearing on the position of peer support specialist. The Department did not adopt the ALJ’s recommended decision, and affirmed its decision denying Jahner’s application. The Department concluded peer support specialists serve a vulnerable population, Jahner’s criminal offenses have a direct bearing on the position of peer support specialist, and he was not sufficiently rehabilitated. The Department’s decision prevented Jahner from becoming a Medicaid provider but did not affect his ability to work as a peer support specialist. The district court reversed the Department's decision, holding the Department’s decision was not in accordance with the law. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the Department’s findings of fact were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and its conclusions of law were supported by its findings of fact. It therefore reversed the district court’s judgment and reinstated the Department’s order. View "Jahner v. NDDHS" on Justia Law