Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Behrens appealed orders granting a petition for appraisal of a homestead, directing the sale of the homestead, and confirming the sale. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court misapplied the law in granting the petition for an appraisal. Therefore, the Court reversed the orders and remanded for further proceedings. View "Malloy, et al. v. Behrens" on Justia Law

David Gaddie appealed after a jury found him guilty of four counts of gross sexual imposition. Gaddie argued the jury instructions were confusing, the district court erred by not instructing the jury it must unanimously agree on the specific act underlying each count, and the court’s inclusion of the term “willfully” in the jury instructions was improper. At trial, Gaddie did not object to the court’s jury instructions. After reviewing the case under the obvious error standard of review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part and reverse the judgment in part. The Court agreed with Gaddie that the sexual contact charges created a unanimity issue. Count III required the jury to find Gaddie touched the victim’s “breasts and/or vulva.” Count IV required the jury to find he touched “her vulva with his penis.” The jury instructions did not provide sufficient factual information to distinguish Count III from Count IV to the extent each permitted a finding of guilt based on a touching of the victim’s vulva. "The jurors may all have agreed Gaddie touched the victim’s vulva on two occasions, but they may not have agreed on which acts occurred. The instructions in this case clearly deviate from the rule we set out in Martinez. We conclude an obvious error occurred. The error in this case implicates Gaddie’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict." The Court reversed the judgment as to Count III. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Gaddie" on Justia Law

Darilyn Baker, individually and on behalf of a certified class, appealed an order denying her motion for a new trial after a jury returned a verdict in favor of RW Enterprises, Inc. and Randy Westby. This case has been before the North Dakota Supreme Court three times. Prior to the Baker III decision, the district court dismissed Baker’s claims after finding the defendants did not violate disclosure requirements of the North Dakota Retail Installment Sales Act (“RISA”). Baker appealed. In Baker III, the Supreme Court concluded the retail installment contracts did not comply with RISA’s disclosure requirements. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of a willful violation of RISA and the remedies available for noncompliance with the disclosure requirements. On remand, Baker filed a motion requesting the district court to approve a settlement with Autos, Inc., Robert Opperude, and James Hendershot, dismiss all claims under RISA, and grant summary judgment on the usury claim against RW Enterprises and Westby. The court approved the settlement but denied the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. At trial, Baker requested the jury be instructed on a partnership between the defendants. The district court declined to provide the partnership instruction, but provided an instruction on “acting in concert” in order for Baker to establish the defendants worked together. The jury found RW Enterprises and Westby did not violate RISA. By answering “no” to the RISA violation, the verdict form instructed the jury to stop answering other questions and return the form to the court. Had the jury found RW Enterprises and Westby in violation, the next question was whether the contract charged usurious interest and if so, what damages were suffered by the plaintiffs. Baker moved for a new trial arguing the district court provided an improper verdict form and jury instructions. The district court denied Baker’s motion. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Baker v. Autos, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Holden Kastet appealed after a jury found him guilty of simple assault. Kastet argued the district court erred by failing to provide his requested jury instructions on self-defense and consent. According to trial testimony, Kastet and Nicholas Fuchs exchanged messages on Facebook relating to a woman they both knew. A witness testified Fuchs approached Kastet in a Jamestown bar. The witness testified Fuchs told Kastet, “[O]kay. Let’s go,” and provoked Kastet to engage in a fight. Kastet testified he and Fuchs agreed to go outside to fight. The trial evidence included a video of the bar’s exterior. The video showed Kastet and Fuchs standing face-to-face before Kastet head-butted and punched Fuchs. Kastet was arrested and charged with simple assault. Before trial, Kastet requested jury instructions on the defenses of consent and self-defense. Kastet argued he acted in self-defense or Fuchs consented to the fight. The district court denied Kastet’s requested instructions, finding they were not appropriate in this case. A jury found Kastet guilty. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred by failing to provide Kastet’s requested instructions. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "City of Jamestown v. Kastet" on Justia Law

Aaron Taylor appealed the district court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Third Amended Judgment modifying his parenting time, limiting his decisionmaking authority, and finding him in contempt. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not clearly err in denying Taylor’s motion to modify or in granting Leah Taylor’s countermotion. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Taylor v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Daniel Samaniego appealed after he was convicted of gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony. He argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the required force for the offense and whether the crime occurred in Cass County. He also argued the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by questioning law enforcement about whether he had been interviewed. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was sufficient evidence to find Samaniego guilty of gross sexual imposition and the issue of prosecutorial misconduct was not sufficiently preserved for appeal or argued on appeal. View "North Dakota v. Samaniego" on Justia Law

In August 2020, two law enforcement officers were dispatched to an outdoor food vendor in Bismarck after receiving reports of two intoxicated individuals passed out under a picnic table. Officer Mehrer, one of the responding officers, was able to immediately identify defendant Mitchell Halsey as one of the individuals because of his prior encounters with Halsey. Officer Mehrer checked Halsey’s name with dispatch and learned there was a warrant for his arrest. While Halsey was being placed under arrest, methamphetamine was discovered in his pocket. Further, when Officer Mehrer placed Halsey into the patrol car, Halsey informed him that he had recently tested positive for Covid. Officer Mehrer began to place a facemask over Halsey’s face, but during this process, Halsey coughed in Officer Mehrer’s direction. Officer Mehrer then transported Halsey to the hospital to be medically cleared because Halsey was severely intoxicated. Halsey was ultimately convicted by jury of attempted contact by bodily fluids, preventing arrest, and possession of controlled substances. Halsey argued the district court erred by admitting evidence identifying the felony charge underlying the arrest warrant. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Halsey" on Justia Law

Mary Orwig appealed a district court order finding her in contempt and imposing remedial sanctions. She challenged whether the parties’ divorce judgment was an order from which non-compliance could result in a finding of contempt, the evidence supporting a finding of contempt, and the sanction as an improper punitive sanction. Steven Orwig cross-appealed the court’s Order Following Remand awarding Mary her attorney’s fees in the divorce. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Orwig v. Orwig" on Justia Law

Viviana Lovett appealed an order denying her motion to modify primary residential responsibility for the children she had with Antonio Lovett. Viviana argued the district court erred by finding she failed to establish a prima facie case for modification because the divorce judgment stated the parties would revisit the parenting plan if either parent intends to move and Antonio moved to relocate the children. The North Dakota Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Viviana's argument because it concluded the issue on appeal was now moot. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. View "Lovett v. Lovett, et al." on Justia Law

The State charged Sheldon Davis with murder, endangering by fire or explosion, and arson after a body was discovered in his apartment following a fire. He was convicted intentional or knowing murder, endangering by fire, and arson. Davis argued on appeal that his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the district court admitted testimonial hearsay statements made by the victim under the theory of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Davis also argued the court erred by ordering him to pay restitution without holding a restitution hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the original judgment of conviction, reversed the amended criminal judgment, and remanded for a restitution hearing. View "North Dakota v. Davis" on Justia Law