Justia North Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Charles Werner was charged with DUI–.08% or greater–1st offense and simple assault, both class B misdemeanors. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the subsequent interview was an improper custodial interrogation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where the arresting officer testified, and bodycam footage was reviewed.The District Court of McHenry County denied Werner’s motion to suppress. Werner then entered a conditional guilty plea to the DUI charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The simple assault charge was dismissed. The court entered a judgment on the DUI charge, which was later amended to reflect the conditional nature of the plea.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Werner’s vehicle based on the information provided by the victim and the circumstances observed by the officers. The court also found that Werner was not subject to an unlawful custodial interrogation, as he was not formally arrested, was told he was not under arrest, and was not restrained or isolated during the questioning. The court held that the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Werner" on Justia Law

Mitchell S. Sanderson filed a civil lawsuit against Judge Kari Agotness, seeking $200 million in damages and demanding an investigation into alleged criminal conduct by Agotness. Sanderson served the summons and complaint on Agotness and the Office of Attorney General. Agotness responded with a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and requested attorney’s fees. Sanderson did not respond to these motions. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, found Sanderson’s claims frivolous, and awarded attorney’s fees to Agotness. Sanderson then filed a motion for relief from judgment under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b), which was denied. Sanderson appealed.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Sanderson argued that the district court erred in dismissing his claims based on judicial immunity, asserting that Agotness lacked personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo and found that Sanderson’s complaint lacked factual context and support, making it frivolous. The court held that judicial immunity protected Agotness from civil claims arising from her judicial duties, as she acted within her jurisdiction.The Supreme Court also reviewed the award of attorney’s fees under the abuse of discretion standard and found no error in the district court’s decision. However, the amount awarded was incorrect due to a computational error. The Supreme Court modified the attorney’s fees from $3,213.80 to $2,787.45.Sanderson’s appeal also included a challenge to the denial of his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court declined to consider this issue further, as Sanderson failed to adequately brief it.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Sanderson’s case based on judicial immunity, modified the attorney’s fees awarded, and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Sanderson v. Agotness" on Justia Law

In 2018, Kevin Hoff pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life without parole. Since his conviction, Hoff has filed three applications for postconviction relief. His first application, filed in May 2020, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. The amended application, which abandoned the newly discovered evidence claim, was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Hoff's second application, filed in December 2021, claimed his trial counsel incorrectly advised him about the defense of others. The State moved to dismiss this application as time-barred and for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process. The district court granted the State's motions, and Hoff did not appeal.Hoff's third application claimed a mental disease excepted him from the two-year limitation, his trial counsel incorrectly advised him, and newly discovered evidence existed. He also filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the order denying his second application. The district court consolidated the Rule 60(b) motion with the third application and held an evidentiary hearing. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss based on the two-year limitation, granted the State's motion for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process, denied Hoff's application, and dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the sequestration order did not apply to all witnesses and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness to testify. The court also held that Hoff's third application for postconviction relief was precluded by the two-year limitation and that Hoff did not demonstrate he met the exception for a physical disability or mental disease. The court did not address the res judicata and misuse of process claims, as the application was already precluded by the two-year limitation. View "Hoff v. State" on Justia Law

Jennie Olson and Jonathan Olson were married on August 22, 2020. Two days before the wedding, Jonathan presented Jennie with a premarital agreement stipulating that in the event of a divorce, each party would retain ownership of their separate property. Jennie signed the agreement the same day. At the time, Jennie had a net worth of $386,917, while Jonathan had a net worth of $11,591,000. The couple separated in July 2022, and Jennie initiated divorce proceedings.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, bifurcated the trial, first addressing the validity of the premarital agreement. The court found the agreement valid and enforceable and determined that the parties had no marital property. Jennie appealed, arguing the district court erred in its findings and abused its discretion in allowing a rebuttal witness to testify and in not admitting a text message as evidence.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in finding the premarital agreement valid and enforceable. The court found that Jennie had access to independent legal representation, received adequate financial disclosure, voluntarily consented to the agreement, and that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the rebuttal witness to testify or in refusing to admit the text message as evidence.The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and denied both parties' requests for attorney’s fees and costs, citing the premarital agreement's provision that each party is responsible for their own legal expenses. View "Olson v. Olson" on Justia Law

James Lowe appealed a decision by Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) regarding the denial of his request for continued opioid medication exceeding 90 Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) daily. Lowe argued that WSI abused its discretion in denying his request for approval of the medication.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, reviewed the case and affirmed WSI's decision. The court found that WSI had not acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously in its decision-making process. The court also noted that Lowe's medical provider had not provided sufficient documentation to support the medical necessity for exceeding the 90 MME limit, as required by the new law effective July 1, 2022.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's decision. The court found that WSI had conducted a full review of Lowe's request and had properly applied the guidelines governing long-term opioid pain management. The court concluded that WSI did not abuse its discretion in denying Lowe's request for continued opioid medication in excess of 90 MME daily. The court affirmed the district court judgment affirming the managed care binding dispute resolution decision by WSI. View "Lowe v. Workforce Safety and Insurance" on Justia Law

Cassidy Cody Johnson was charged with gross sexual imposition, luring minors by computer, and possession of prohibited materials in August 2024. Johnson and the State reached a plea agreement where Johnson would plead guilty to the first and third charges, resulting in a 50-year sentence with 25 years suspended for the first charge and a concurrent 5-year sentence for the third charge. The second charge was dismissed. The district court accepted the plea agreement, and Johnson was sentenced accordingly. Johnson appealed the judgment.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, accepted the plea agreement and imposed the sentence. Johnson appealed, arguing that the district court erred by sentencing him to 25 years on the gross sexual imposition charge, imposing an unreasonable lifetime no-contact order and lifetime sexual offender registration, and failing to ensure his plea was knowing and voluntary. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not negotiating a better plea agreement or taking the case to trial.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and applied the abuse of discretion standard. The court found that Johnson's sentence was within the statutory limits and resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. Johnson did not move to withdraw his plea or establish a manifest injustice. The court also declined to review Johnson's argument about the lifetime sexual offender registration because it was raised for the first time during oral argument on appeal. The court found that the district court did consider mitigating factors and did not abuse its discretion. Additionally, the court held that Johnson waived appellate review of his claim regarding the N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory by not objecting or moving to withdraw his plea. The court also declined to address Johnson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal due to the inadequacy of the record.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Rickie Poseley appealed a decision made by the Homer Township Board of Supervisors. The district court dismissed her appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction because Poseley did not properly serve her notice of appeal on the township. Poseley argued that the court should overrule previous decisions that held personal delivery of service cannot be made by proxy or accomplished by mail.The District Court of Stutsman County, Southeast Judicial District, presided over by Judge James T. Shockman, dismissed Poseley's appeal due to improper service. The court found that Poseley did not comply with the mandatory service requirements under N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E), which require personal delivery to a member of the township's governing board. The court ruled that service by proxy or mail was not effective.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that compliance with N.D.C.C. § 28-34-01 and N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(d)(2)(E) is mandatory to invoke the district court’s appellate jurisdiction. The court reiterated that service on a proxy not authorized by law or appointment, or service by mail, does not constitute personal delivery. The Supreme Court declined to overrule its precedent and summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal of Poseley's appeal under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). View "Poseley v. Homer Township" on Justia Law

Grant Grensteiner was charged with 17 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 18 counts of theft of property after a traffic stop led to the discovery of stolen firearms and other items. Grensteiner, a passenger in the vehicle, moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause to search the towed vehicle. The district court denied the motion, finding traffic violations justified the stop and probable cause extended to the towed vehicle due to a drug detection dog's alert.The district court held a jury trial, and Grensteiner moved for a judgment of acquittal after the State's case-in-chief, which was denied. The jury found him guilty on all counts. Grensteiner appealed, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the traffic violations provided a lawful basis for the stop and the probable cause to search the towing vehicle extended to the towed vehicle. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Grensteiner's convictions, noting his control over the towed vehicle and the presence of stolen items. Additionally, the court concluded that the State's questioning of a detective did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or improperly shift the burden of proof to Grensteiner. The court emphasized that the jury instructions clearly stated the State's burden of proof and the defendant's presumption of innocence. View "State v. Grensteiner" on Justia Law

Alexander Gothberg called 911, reporting that his two-year-old child had possibly overdosed on fentanyl. When officers arrived, Gothberg opened his apartment door, holding the child, and described the situation while walking back into the apartment. The officers followed him inside, believing they were to assist the child. Gothberg explained that he had administered Narcan and performed CPR on the child, who then regained consciousness. The officers observed the apartment in disarray and found evidence of drug use. Gothberg consented to the officers looking around the apartment and disclosed the presence of a handgun and controlled substances.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Gothberg's motion to suppress evidence, finding that he had consented to the officers entering his apartment and that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied. The court also concluded that the plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines did not apply because no items were seized until a warrant was obtained. Gothberg conditionally pled guilty to six counts, including drug-related offenses and child endangerment, and appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Gothberg's affirmative conduct, such as calling 911, opening the door, and describing the situation, indicated consent for the officers to enter his apartment. The court also found that the officers' entry and search were justified under the consent exception to the warrant requirement. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by sufficient competent evidence and were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. View "State v. Gothberg" on Justia Law

Bradley Graff was charged with gross sexual imposition involving a victim under the age of 15. Before the trial, the district court ruled that Graff's prior convictions and status as a sex offender would be inadmissible. During the trial, the State's examination of a witness violated this order, leading to a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice.The State appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the charge with prejudice without properly determining whether the State acted in bad faith or through prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or prosecutorial misconduct and to consider lesser sanctions.On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct but did not act maliciously or attempt to delay the trial. The court determined that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate. Graff appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not dismissing the case with prejudice.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court's decision was based on a rational mental process and did not misinterpret or misapply the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice, concluding that the district court did not act arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably. View "State v. Graff" on Justia Law