Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brendel Construction appealed a district court judgment affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision to hold Brendel Construction liable for unpaid workers compensation premiums and penalties attributed to a subcontractor’s account, and determining Randy Brendel was personally liable for unpaid workers compensation premiums. North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) cross-appealed the district court’s order dismissing WSI’s cross-appeal from the decision of the ALJ as untimely filed. WSI identified Brendel Construction as the general contractor for a roofing project in Bismarck where crew members were reported to be working without fall protection. WSI’s investigation of the report regarding the lack of fall protection expanded into an investigation of workers compensation coverage. WSI ultimately concluded that two of Brendel Construction’s subcontractors, Alfredo Frias and Daniel Alvidrez, were uninsured and not providing North Dakota workers compensation coverage for their employees. WSI requested, but did not receive, information from Brendel Construction regarding the subcontractors’ income. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of liability against Brendel Construction for unpaid workers compensation premiums and penalties, and affirmed the imposition of liability against Randy Brendel. The Court reversed and remanded the dismissal of WSI’s cross-appeal as untimely filed. View "Brendel Construction v. WSI" on Justia Law

Trevor Bolme appealed after entering a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Bolme argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop based on a cracked windshield, and lacked probable cause to search his vehicle based on the odor of marijuana. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop and probable cause to conduct the search. Therefore, the Court affirmed the criminal judgment of the district court. View "North Dakota v. Bolme" on Justia Law

Rolando Rodriguez was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition, burglary, terrorizing, and domestic violence assault. On appeal, Rodriguez argued: (1) he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel; (2) insufficient evidence existed to support his guilty verdicts; and (3) the district court erred when it failed to use a special verdict for the jury to determine whether Rodriguez used a dangerous weapon in commission of the terrorizing offense. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Rodriguez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel and he failed to preserve his arguments on sufficiency of the evidence and the necessity of a special verdict form. The Court, therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Simon Hofer appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to driving under the influence. He argued the district court was required to suppress the results of the urine test because the implied consent advisory was not substantively complete and the search warrant did not cure the defect in the advisory. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the implied consent advisory given in this case did not convey all substantive information required by statute, and as a result the test result was not admissible in a criminal proceeding. View "City of Fargo v. Hofer" on Justia Law

Stephanie Foote appealed an order denying her motion to suppress evidence and from the criminal judgment entered after she conditionally pled guilty to a charge of actual physical control (APC) of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. On appeal, Foote argued the district court erred in determining that she was not unconstitutionally seized and, thus, her motion to suppress should have been granted. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Foote" on Justia Law

John Hirschkorn was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and driving under the influence of alcohol. The charges arose from an altercation in a McLean County, North Dakota bar that was captured on video. Hirschkorn was involved in a bar fight with another individual, resulting in Hirschkorn striking that individual in the face with a beer bottle and causing a serious cut to the individual’s face. Hirschkorn also sustained several injuries, including a blow to his head. After the fight concluded, Hirschkorn left the bar and drove away from the scene. Law enforcement officers arrived at the bar, and the individual was taken to the hospital. Officers subsequently located Hirschkorn driving his vehicle. He was stopped and ultimately arrested for driving under the influence. Because Hirschkorn was taken to the hospital to be medically cleared before testing, it was more than two hours after he had last driven that an Intoxilyzer test established his blood alcohol concentration to be 0.139 percent, over the legal limit. Before jury selection, Hirschkorn made a motion in limine requesting the court to exclude a video from the bar showing at least a portion of the fight. The court subsequently received the video into evidence at trial over his objection. The court also allowed limited testimony at trial from a neuropsychologist called as an expert witness by Hirschkorn to discuss symptoms of traumatic brain injury, to show Hirschkorn had sustained a brain injury caused by the other individual in the altercation, and to support the reasonableness of his claim of self-defense. Hirschkorn argued on appeal the district court should have excluded the exhibit including bar videos and the court should not have limited the neuropsychologist’s expert testimony. Finding no abuse of discretion or other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "North Dakota v. Hirschkorn" on Justia Law

Terry George appealed a domestic violence protection order entered against him, claiming the district court erred, without properly explaining the factual basis for its decision, in finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported that actual or imminent domestic violence had or would occur. Nicole Lindstaedt and George dated for approximately four years. They lived together and had a child in common. In February 2020, Lindstaedt petitioned for a domestic violence protection order against George, alleging he choked her, punched her, threatened to kill her, and forced her to have sex with him. After a hearing, the district court found George had committed domestic violence and issued a protection order against him. The order prohibited George from having contact with Lindstaedt for two years. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s finding of domestic violence was not induced by an erroneous view of the law, nor was the Court left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. The Supreme Court's review of the record showed Lindstaedt presented sufficient evidence for the district court to find domestic violence by recent physical harm and nonconsensual sex. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the domestic violence protection order. View "Lindstaedt v. George" on Justia Law

This was the second appeal involving this matter. In the first appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s finding that there was a confidential relationship between Richard Twete and Clinton Mullin, and that Mullin committed a breach of trust, but the Court reversed an attorney’s fees award to Twete against Mullin and remanded “for further consideration and explanation of the legal basis authorizing the award of attorney fees in this case.” On remand, the parties briefed and argued whether the district court should award Twete his attorney’s fees. In March of 2020, the district court again granted Twete’s attorney’s fees request. Mullin appealed that order, arguing the district court abused its discretion through misapplication and misinterpretation of the law. To this, the Supreme Court agreed: the district court misinterpreted the law and abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded again for further proceedings. View "Twete v. Mullin, et al." on Justia Law

In 2007 a jury found Timler Everett guilty of gross sexual imposition. Everett appealed a district court order denying his petition for postconviction relief based on allegedly newly discovered evidence. Everett argued the trial court erred in denying his petition and dismissing his related motions. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the district court’s current order as denying Everett leave to file additional motions. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. Therefore, the Court dismissed Everett’s appeal. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Discover Bank (Discover) appealed a district court order denying its motion for judgment and dismissing the case. Discover sued Bryan Hornbacher, alleging he was indebted to it on a credit card debt for $14,695.13. The parties entered into a stipulation and consent. The stipulation provided an acknowledgment by Hornbacher that he had been served with the summons and complaint and an admission that he had no defenses to the allegations in the complaint. Hornbacher consented to entry of judgment in the amount of $14,695.13 in exchange for Discover’s agreement to accept $10,080.00 payable over three years as full satisfaction of the judgment, and to forego execution on the judgment unless there were a default in the agreed-upon payment schedule. In its order, the trial court found that “[p]laintiff files a stipulation stating it will not move for judgment unless the terms of the agreement are [breached].” The North Dakota Supreme Court found this was an error, as was the trial court's focus on the lack of default under the stipulation having occurred: "Discover was not moving to execute the judgment, but rather was, by affidavit, moving for judgment to be entered against Hornbacher pursuant to the stipulation. The court misread the stipulation and misapplied the law." Because the plain language of the stipulation provided for judgment against Hornbacher to be entered, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment. View "Discover Bank v. Hornbacher" on Justia Law