Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State appealed a district court order dismissing a charge of class C felony unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia against Damian Carrillo for lack of probable cause. The State charged Carrillo with felony unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension following an arrest in March 2021. At the preliminary hearing on the paraphernalia charge, Officer Jerad Braaten was the only witness. Officer Braaten testified he initiated a traffic stop on March 2, 2021; Carrillo was driving, and two other passengers were in the vehicle at the time. Carrillo was driving on a suspended license; dispatch informed the officer Carrillo had a history of drug-related activity. Officer Braaten testified he detected the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle; he requested assistance from a canine unit, which alerted on Carrillo’s vehicle. Officers then conducted a probable-cause search of the vehicle. On cross-examination, Officer Braaten stated the paraphernalia was not discovered until after Carrillo had been removed from the vehicle. He also acknowledged that the other passengers “were unsupervised in the suspect vehicle even for a brief period of time.” Officer Braaten testified that Carrillo had physical access to the location where the needle was found, but the other passengers could “throw anything through a car.” The district court dismissed the charge for possession of paraphernalia for lack of probable cause. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the State produced sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the charge. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

Scott Smith and Kristen Hackmann, co-personal representatives of William Smith’s estate, appealed a February 17, 2021 order denying their post-judgment motions and granting Charlene and LeeAllen Smith’s motion to enforce the existing judgment. On June 15, 2020, the co-personal representatives filed an amended inventory and appraisement along with a notice of proposed distribution. Charlene Smith objected to the proposed distribution and filed a motion to compel compliance with the November 2, 2018 Judgment. In response to the motion to compel, the co-personal representatives argued that Charlene Smith had rejected the distribution reflected in the November 2, 2018 Judgment by filing for an elective share, she had no probable cause to challenge the will so the penalty clause in the will had been triggered, and the question of whether she was entitled to a share of the estate remained open. Charlene Smith’s assertion of an elective share and challenge to the will were within the litigation between the parties prior to the entry of the 2018 Judgment. A hearing was held on October 13, 2020. Charlene Smith argued that the 2018 Judgment was final regardless of a provision that left open an increase in legal and administrative fees. The co-personal representatives argued there were mistakes in the 2018 inventory and appraisement and questioned whether the district court should require distributions pursuant to the 2018 Judgment, the supplemental inventory, or start over. During the hearing, all of the parties provided argument on the issue of whether the 2018 Judgment was final. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court noted: “These matters—or the Motion to Compel issue, obviously, needs to be decided first.” The court found the 2018 Judgment was final, the time to appeal the November 2, 2018 Judgment had passed, LeeAllen and Charlene Smith were entitled to their distributions pursuant to the 2018 Judgment, and the finality of the 2018 Judgment precluded resolution of the co-personal representatives’ post-judgment motions. The court ordered attorney’s fees to be paid by the co-personal representatives personally after finding there was no basis in law to support their post-judgment motions and their authority as personal representatives had ceased. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred the 2018 Judgment was final, thereby affirming the February 2021 order. View "Estate of Smith" on Justia Law

Christopher Kjelgren appealed a district court judgment entered in favor of Cavare, Inc., and the subsequent order denying his motion for relief from the judgment. In 2017, Cavare, Inc. (also referred to as “Cavare USA”) commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring Cavare USA the rightful owner of a one-third interest in Petroleum Services Drilling Motors, Inc. (“PSDM”), and claiming breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment to recover $230,000 in shareholder distributions that PSDM had made to Kjelgren. Following a bench trial, the district court found Cavare USA was the owner of the disputed PSDM shares and $230,000 in shareholder distributions issued to Kjelgren belonged to Cavare USA. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court’s finding that Cavare, Inc. was the rightful owner of disputed shares corresponding to a one-third interest in Petroleum Services Drilling Motors, Inc. was not clearly erroneous. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for relief from the judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60. View "Cavare v. Kjelgren" on Justia Law

John Bridges appealed a district court order denying his applications for postconviction relief. In 2012, Bridges pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping. The district court sentenced him to life in prison without parole. In 2013, Bridges pleaded guilty to attempted murder and possession of contraband by an inmate. The court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment on each count. n January 2019, Bridges filed applications for postconviction relief in both criminal matters. He alleged he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia that prevented him from filing a timely application for relief. He alleged he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and took psychotropic medication before his incarceration and while in custody. He alleged prison officials coerced him “to say things that would ultimately discredit his history of mental illness.” He alleged he was injected with a powerful antipsychotic drug before sentencing. Bridges sought to withdraw his guilty pleas. The district court held a hearing on Bridges’ applications, allowing him to present evidence related to his mental status. The court found Bridges’ mental status was not newly discovered evidence because his competency was fully evaluated at the time of his convictions. The court found Bridges’ applications were untimely and denied him relief. On appeal of the denial of relief to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Bridges claimed his mental illness prevented him from understanding the charges against him or aiding in his defense. He also claimed his mental illness prevented him from filing a timely application for relief. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Bridges v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Eugene Taszarek, Marlys Taszarek, Trina Schilling, Steven Taszarek, and Michael Taszarek (“Taszareks”) appealed a judgment finding Lakeview Excavating, Inc., was not the alter ego of Brian Welken. Welken was Lakeview Excavating’s president and sole shareholder. While working on certain county projects, Lakeview Excavating’s employees took fieldstones from a nearby property owned by the Taszareks to use for the roads. The Taszareks sued Lakeview Excavating and Welken for intentional trespass, conversion of property, and unjust enrichment. The claims of trespass and conversion were tried to a jury. The jury returned a verdict in the Taszareks’ favor, finding Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken and holding both parties liable for damages. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding the district court inadequately instructed the jury on the alter ego doctrine. After a bench trial, the district court found Lakeview Excavating was the alter ego of Welken and ordered the Taszareks could recover damages from either Welken or Lakeview Excavating. The Supreme Court reversed again, concluding the court’s findings relating to piercing Lakeview Excavating’s corporate veil were inadequate to permit appellate review. On remand, the court held an evidentiary hearing and found Lakeview Excavating was not the alter ego of Welken. The Taszareks argue the district court exceeded the scope of remand by holding an evidentiary hearing instead of specifying findings of fact based on evidence already in the record. Finding no reversible error in last of the district court's alter ego findings, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Taszarek, et al. v. Lakeview Excavating, et al." on Justia Law

Joseph Motisi appealed a district court order and judgment denying his petition for writ of mandamus. Hebron Public School District employed Motisi as a teacher during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years. Prior to his employment with the District, Motisi worked as a teacher in another North Dakota school district for four years. On April 23, 2021, the District sent Motisi a Probationary Teacher Notice of Nonrenewal, informing him the District would not be renewing his teaching contract. Motisi sent a letter to the District on April 26, 2021, notifying the District of his acceptance of a continuing contract for the 2021-22 school year. The District then notified Motisi he was unable to accept an offer to renew a contract because his contract was nonrenewed. Motisi applied for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and later for a writ of mandamus. The court issued an order denying Motisi’s petition for writ of mandamus, stating the sole issue was “whether Motisi is a probationary employee under N.D.C.C. 15.1-15-02(8)” and that “Motisi concedes that if he was a probationary teacher, the District complied with the law.” The district court rejected Motisi’s argument that because he had four years of experience at another school, he could not be considered a probationary teacher under the statute. The court ultimately found “[t]he District followed the requirements of the statute when it non-renewed Motisi’s contract” and “Motisi has not demonstrated that he has a clear legal right” to the renewed contract. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in interpreting N.D.C.C. 15.1-15-02(8), and affirmed judgment. View "Motisi v. Hebron Public School District" on Justia Law

Defendants William Grommesh and Jon Pansch appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of American Federal Bank in its action to enforce four guaranties. The defendants argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the court misinterpreted the guaranties, and genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the defendants’ defenses. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "American Federal Bank v. Grommesh, et al." on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice charges of criminal trespass, burglary, and theft of property against Joseph Brown. With the exception of criminal mischief, all charges were class C felonies. At the preliminary hearing, Officer Gannon Miller was the only witness. He was not the investigating officer and had no contact with Brown prior to the preliminary hearing. Officer Miller testified he did not respond to the scene of the possible break-in. The court dismissed the felony charges against Brown, informing the State “unless [the witness] has some actual, hands-on, direct contact with this crime,” the court would not find probable cause. The court determined that “[p]roducing a witness with no point of contact with the case, and whose only role in the hearing would be to read reports and affidavits prepared by others is insufficient to establish probable cause at a preliminary hearing.” On appeal, the State argued the court erred in refusing to admit hearsay testimony offered by the State’s witness. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed. "While a court is given discretion in admitting hearsay evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 5.1(a), the court here permitted only a limited examination of Officer Miller before determining he had no basis to provide any testimony. In light of the burden of proof placed upon the State, and noting the court should draw all inferences in favor of the prosecution, we conclude the court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it unreasonably prevented the State’s inquiry into matters that were relevant to a determination of probable cause. The court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the State to fully examine Officer Miller and in not considering whether Officer Miller’s testimony was implausible or incredible. We hold a court must allow the State to present its evidence at the preliminary hearing before determining what weight to give that evidence, including otherwise inadmissible hearsay." The matter was remanded for a preliminary hearing. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Len Vannett appealed an amended criminal judgment entered after his conditional guilty plea for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He argued the arresting officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop and the approved methods were not followed in administering the intoxilyzer breath machine. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Vannett's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Vannett" on Justia Law

Allison Houkom appealed after she was found guilty of giving false information to a law enforcement officer. In 2019, Officer Matt Oldham of the West Fargo Police Department attempted to serve a warrant on a male at a residence in West Fargo. Houkom was in the driveway of the residence smoking a cigarette. Oldham approached Houkom and asked if the male he was looking for was inside the residence. She stated she did not know. Oldham then asked Houkom if she lived at the residence. She responded that she did not. Oldham then proceeded to ask Houkom for her name. She responded with “Kaylinn Marie Schmainda.” When Oldham asked for her date of birth, Houkom responded that he did not need it. Oldham then contacted dispatch to check the name. Approximately a minute later, Houkom informed Oldham that she had given him a false name because she had an outstanding warrant. Houkom then provided her correct name, and Oldham determined the warrant was from Minnesota and was non-extraditable. Houkom was arrested and charged with giving false information. On appeal, Houkom argued: (1) the district court erroneously denied her pre-trial motion to dismiss; (2) the district court misinterpreted N.D.C.C. 12.1-11-03(1); and (3) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she interfered with an investigation or materially misled an officer by giving a false name. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that under a correct application of the statute there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict. View "North Dakota v. Houkom" on Justia Law