Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jennifer Williams appealed a second amended divorce judgment, arguing the district court failed to make findings supporting its modification of parenting time. She also contended the court erred when it terminated a parenting coordinator, and the court violated her right to due process when it removed a specific provision of the judgment without a request from either party. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williams v. Williams, et al." on Justia Law

Gary Schuler appealed after he entered a conditional guilty plea for driving under suspension, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. On October 9, 2019, Schuler was stopped by a Lincoln Police Department officer for failing to use a turn signal when Schuler exited a traffic roundabout. Schuler filed a motion to suppress challenging the legality of the stop, arguing a turn signal was not required prior to exiting a roundabout and the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. Schuler did not make any argument regarding the requirement in N.D.C.C. 39-10-38(2) for “continuously [signaling] during not less than the last one hundred feet [30.48 meters] traveled by the vehicle before turning.” The district court denied Schuler’s motion. Finding no reversible error in that decision, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Lincoln v. Schuler" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court order and a judgment reversing a Department hearing officer’s decision to suspend Yonis Hussiene’s driving privileges for a period of 180 days. Hussiene was stopped by a state trooper for running a red light. Dash camera footage from the trooper's patrol vehicle did not show the traffic light for Hussiene. Rather, it showed only the traffic light across the intersection from the trooper. The footage showd the left turn signal lights for the traffic immediately next to the trooper turning green just as Hussiene left the intersection. After Hussiene was pulled over, the trooper detected an odor of alcohol, and Hussiene acknowledged drinking that night. The trooper administered field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, and then he arrested Hussiene for driving under the influence. After finding there were sufficient grounds to stop the vehicle and Hussiene refused the chemical breath test, a hearing officer revoked Hussiene’s license for 180 days. Hussiene appealed the hearing officer’s decision to district court, and the court reversed the hearing officer’s decision, concluding, “[T]hat a reasoning mind could not have reasonably determined that Hussiene ran a red light.” The court held, “Hoffner failed to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Hussiene had violated or was about to violate the law.” The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred when it determined there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion for the traffic stop. The trooper had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Hussiene for failing to stop at a red light, and the weight of the evidence showed Hussiene refused the chemical breath test. The Court therefore reversed the order and the judgment of the district court and reinstated the hearing officer’s decision. View "Hussiene v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Ryan Scott appealed a district court order denying his motion to modify primary residential responsibility. Scott argued the district court erred by failing to find a material change in circumstances existed and failing to analyze the best interest factors. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Scott v. Scott" on Justia Law

Justin Fisketjon appealed a judgment determining primary residential responsibility of the parties’ minor child and awarding child support. Fisketjon claimed the district court improperly included his roommate’s share of rent as income in its child support calculation. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred as a matter of law. Fisketjon and his roommate had an equal obligation to pay their landlord the full amount of the rent under the terms of the lease. The rental obligation was money owed to the landlord; it was not money owed to Fisketjon. Thus, the roommate’s share of the rent was not a “payment . . . owed to an obligor” as required by the N.D.C.C. 14-09-09.10(9) definition of income. Finding no error with the residential responsibility portion of the district court judgment, the Sipreme Court affirmed that portion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Eubanks v. Fisketjon, et al." on Justia Law

Alex Eggleston appealed a district court’s amended criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Eggleston argued his sentence was illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-09.1 and N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 51 were unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. Because Eggleston’s argument was not adequately developed and presented before the district court, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Eggleston" on Justia Law

Randy Jensen appealed a district court order denying his request to vacate the judgment and seek dismissal of the prosecution. In 2017, the North Dakota charged Jensen with possession of controlled substances, possession of drug paraphernalia, and the unlawful use of motor vehicle license plates. Jensen’s trial was originally set for April 24, 2018. His trial was rescheduled twice, and the case was ultimately resolved through a bench trial that started on August 7, 2018. Jensen was found guilty on all charges. Jensen was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with credit for time served prior to sentencing. Jensen appealed his conviction to the North Dakota Supreme Court. He subsequently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. In 2019, Jensen filed an application for post-conviction relief, but later withdrew his application. The post-conviction action was dismissed. The on September 17, 2020, Jensen filed a request to vacate the judgment and dismiss the prosecution arguing he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court concluded Jensen’s request to vacate and dismiss had to be treated as an application for post-conviction relief and was an appealable order. Because Jensen’s application did not raise a genuine issue as to any material fact and the State was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, the Court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. View "North Dakota v. Jensen" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless search of Nicholas Lelm’s backpack. In 2019, a City of Mandan Police Officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle with two occupants, a driver and a passenger. The driver was arrested on outstanding warrants and for driving under suspension. The driver provided his consent to search the vehicle. Lelm, the passenger, was seated in the front passenger seat with a backpack on his lap. The officer who initiated the stop called for the assistance of a drug-detection canine. After the canine arrived, Lelm was asked to exit the vehicle. Lelm exited and took his backpack with him. Lelm placed his backpack on the ground some distance from the vehicle. The officers then detained Lelm, conducted a pat-down search, placed him in handcuffs, and secured him in the back of a patrol vehicle. While Lelm was detained and secured in the patrol vehicle, his backpack remained on the ground. The canine positively alerted on the front passenger door prompting a search of the vehicle. While on the scene, the canine paid no attention to the backpack. Upon completing the search of the vehicle, the officers searched the backpack and discovered drug paraphernalia and marijuana. After he had been placed under arrest, Lelm complained of chest pains and requested medical assistance. An ambulance was called to the scene to transport Lelm to the hospital. At Lelm’s suppression hearing, an officer testified that ambulance personnel generally require a search of personal property before an individual is transported to the hospital. The officer testified the backpack would have been searched if the backpack was in the ambulance and if Lelm would have claimed the backpack as his property. Challenging the suppression order, the State argued the warrantless search was reasonable under either the automobile exception or search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Alternatively, the State argued that even if the warrantless search was unreasonable, the evidence was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. Because neither the automobile exception nor the search incident to arrest exception applied to the warrantless search, and the State did not meet its burden of establishing the evidence would have been inevitably discovered, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Lelm" on Justia Law

In June 2008, Scot Decker sustained work related injuries while he was working for Cyclone Drilling, Inc. in Mountrail County, North Dakota. WSI accepted liability and Decker received more than $1,250,000 in benefits from WSI. In June 2014, Decker signed a third party notice of legal representation advising WSI that he retained an attorney and planned to bring an action against a third party for the work related injuries. The notice stated Decker would act as a trustee for WSI’s subrogated interest. The notice also included a lien notice, advising that WSI had a lien in the full amount it paid in all benefits for Decker’s claim and that WSI could sue if Decker received any money related to the claim from a third party and WSI did not receive payment of its lien within 30 days of the third party’s payment to Decker. Decker brought an action against I.E. Miller Services, Inc., received a favorable verdict, and was awarded $2,045,972.60 in damages. In December 2018, WSI issued a subrogation order, finding it paid Decker for his work related injury and Decker failed to pay WSI’s subrogation interest and lien within 30 days. Decker requested a hearing before an ALJ. Decker alleged WSI incorrectly applied the law, it inappropriately included in the subrogation order benefits paid related to medical negligence which is the subject of a separate third-party action, and it did not properly determine the amount of its lien. Decker also argued WSI did not have a right to recovery of its lien before attorney’s fees and litigation expenses were paid. The ALJ ruled in favor of WSI, and Decker appealed. Decker argued the district court erred in concluding it does not have jurisdiction and dismissing his appeal. The North Dakota Supreme Court found Decker brought his appeal in Burleigh County District Court, and it was undisputed that Decker did not reside in Burleigh County and that his injuries did not occur in Burleigh County. Because N.D.C.C. 65-10-01 applied and required Decker to bring the appeal in the county where he resided or the county where the injury was inflicted, the Burleigh County district court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. Dismissal was affirmed. View "Decker v. WSI" on Justia Law

The State appealed a judgment dismissing its criminal complaint against Orin Gedrose after the district court held N.D.C.C. 6-08-16(1)(d) was unconstitutional. Gedrose was charged with issuing a check without sufficient funds in violation of N.D.C.C. 6-08-16(1)(d), a class C felony. The State alleged on October 31, 2017, Gedrose made and delivered to the Peterson Law Office a check for $120,000 payable to “Peterson Trust Acc’t,” and the check was returned on November 6, 2017, for non-sufficient funds. He argued the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a mens rea requirement for a violation and it did not qualify as a public welfare offense. He also claimed a mens rea element was required because innocent conduct could be severely punished. The State opposed the motion, arguing the statute was a strict liability offense and the lack of a mens rea requirement did not violate due process. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded, concluding the district court erred in deciding N.D.C.C. 6-08-16(1)(d) was unconstitutional. View "North Dakota v. Gedrose" on Justia Law