Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Matthew Beland and Sarah Kyte appealed after the denial of Beland’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for sanctions against Jeremiah Danel and Jeremiah Danel, D.D.S., P.C., and the granting of Danel’s motion for sanctions against Beland and Kyte. Beland and his former spouse shared joint legal custody over their two minor children since divorcing in 2015. Beland, with the assistance of his counsel, Kyte, filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order along with a complaint seeking injunctive relief against Danel to stop dental services from being provided to Beland’s children. The complaint also sought full disclosure of the children’s dental records for services already received. The district court denied Beland’s request for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief, and granted Danel’s motion for sanctions, finding that Beland and Kyte’s commencement of litigation was done for the improper purpose of exercising control over Beland’s former spouse’s decisions, and usurping Minnesota family court proceedings in violation of N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(1). The court also found Beland’s claims lacked evidentiary support in violation of N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(3). The court noted that N.D.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2) was not violated because Beland and Kyte’s request for dental records had merit. After review of the district court decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Beland, et al. v. Danel, et al." on Justia Law

Zachary Archambault appeals from a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child, arguing the district court erred by granting a continuance and denying his motion for a mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Archambault" on Justia Law

Zhiwar Ismail appealed after he was convicted on two counts of possession and delivery of a controlled substance. He argued on appeal he received ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to move for acquittal on all charges, and for failing to make certain objections at trial. Further, Ismail argued the trial court improperly questioned witnesses. Finding no reversible error in the trial court proceedings, and that his counsel did not render constitutionally ineffective assistance, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Ismail’s convictions. View "North Dakota v. Ismail" on Justia Law

Michael Sapa was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition. On appeal, he argued the district court erred by excluding evidence about the victim’s age. He claims two statutes, N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-01 and 14-10-01, created competing and confusing definitions of “minors.” He also argued N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-01 was unconstitutionally vague. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Sapa’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. Sapa" on Justia Law

Cole Peters appealed his convictions for: terrorizing, two counts of gross sexual imposition, attempted murder, and felonious restraint. Peters argued on appeal that the State violated his right to a speedy trial, that the district court erred when it failed to exclude duplicate photographs of B.C., the victim, and that the court should have given a curative instruction to the jury on the duplicate pictures. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "North Dakota v. Peters" on Justia Law

Ordahl LLC (“Ordahl”) appeals from a district court order granting Arlene Lykken, Bruce Lykken, Paul Lykken, and Sandra Teske’s (“the Lykkens”) motion for summary judgment and denying Ordahl’s motion for summary judgment. Ordahl and the Lykkens executed a purchase agreement for the sale of 12 acres of land and an easement on adjacent property to the north of the parcel. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Ordahl was required to provide a $10,000 earnest money payment. After the purchase agreement was signed, the Lykkens anticipatorily breached the agreement. Ordahl brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment declaring that Ordahl’s relief was not limited to the return of its earnest money. Ordahl claimed it was not required to terminate the parties’ agreement and was entitled to enforce the terms of the agreement through the equitable doctrine of specific performance. The Lykkens counterclaimed seeking reformation of the purchase agreement. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in determining the purchase agreement required Ordahl to terminate the agreement and limited Ordahl to a recovery of its earnest money. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case for consideration of whether Ordahl should have prevailed on its equitable claim to enforce the terms of the parties’ agreement through specific performance and, if necessary, consider the Lykkens’s request for reformation of the agreement. View "Ordahl v. Lykken, et al." on Justia Law

Ryan Kratz appealed after the district court denied his motion seeking to correct an illegal sentence and dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. The court held Kratz had failed to sufficiently support his application and found it would not be equitable for the application to be heard pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the application for post-conviction relief. View "Kratz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Wendy Davis-Heinze appealed her conviction for reckless endangerment. She argued on appeal that the district court conducted an off-the-record discussion with counsel outside the courtroom and outside of the view of the public in violation of her right to public trial under the Sixth Amendment. She also argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the non-public discussion was not a trial closure in violation of the Sixth Amendment public trial right. View "North Dakota v. Davis-Heinze" on Justia Law

Robert Goff appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer’s decision to suspend his driving privileges and denying costs and attorney’s fees. In December 2021, Fargo Police Department officers responded to a report of an unresponsive motorist parked in the parking lot of an apartment building. When Officer Blake Omberg arrived at the scene, he saw an individual, later identified as Goff, asleep in a pickup truck parked in the parking lot. Another officer and emergency personnel were already at the scene. Firefighters eventually unlocked the vehicle and Goff was awoken by law enforcement. Goff called his father, John Goff, an attorney who owned the apartment building and parking lot. John Goff arrived at the scene and spoke with law enforcement. Robert Goff was eventually arrested for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Department of Transportation issued Goff a report and notice informing him that it intended to suspend his driving privileges. Goff requested an administrative hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the suspension, concluding the public does not have a right of access to a private parking lot for vehicular use when the lot is marked “private property” and a city ordinance makes such use unlawful when so marked. The case was remanded to the district court to reconsider costs and attorney’s fees. View "Goff v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Jody Kuntz appealed a district court order denying her application for post-conviction relief. Kuntz was charged with criminal mischief and criminal trespass. Before trial, Kuntz pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced according to a negotiated agreement. Kuntz subsequently filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw her guilty pleas. Kuntz argued there was new evidence to show she was incompetent at the time she entered her guilty pleas and it would be a manifest injustice if she were unable to withdraw her guilty pleas. Finding no reversible error in the district court order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kuntz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law