Daniel J. Crothers, Justice Coughlin Construction v. Nu-Tec Industries , 2008 ND 163,
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Objections to damages must be raised in the district court to preserve those issues for appellate review.
Whether a party has made a good-faith effort to mitigate damages is a finding of fact that will be set aside on appeal only if it is clearly erroneous.
Although the officers and directors of a corporation generally are not liable for the ordinary debts of a corporation, the corporate veil may be pierced when the legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime.
Disciplinary Board v. McCray , 2008 ND 162,
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Lawyer suspended from practice of law for six months and one day and ordered to pay costs and expenses of proceeding for violating N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.5, 4.1, 5.4, 5.5(e), 7.3(a), 8.4(c), (f), and (g), and N.D.R. Lawyer Discipl. 1.2A(3) and (8).
Improper solicitation of clients occurs when a lawyer involves himself with an organization that independently targets and solicits prospects for his representation.
Kortum v. Johnson , 2008 ND 154,
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Close corporation shareholders owe one another a duty of utmost loyalty and good faith.
By signing a shareholder agreement, the shareholders of a close corporation do not bargain away the fiduciary duty owed to them by the corporation's other shareholders.
A shareholder agreement is presumed to reflect the reasonable expectations of a corporation's shareholders.
The threshold issue in a claim of shareholder oppression based on termination of employment is whether the terminated shareholder-employee had a reasonable expectation of continued employment.
A shareholder agreement providing for periodic reevaluation of share value signifies a bona fide intention on the part of both parties to enter into periodic negotiations; when the parties to the agreement have not reevaluated the shares as contemplated by the agreement, the remaining shareholders have the burden of showing they did not refuse in bad faith to enter into such negotiations.
State v. Lunde , 2008 ND 142, 752 N.W.2d 630
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Evidence which is illegally seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule; however, under the good-faith exception, evidence should not be excluded when an officer has acted in good faith upon objectively reasonable reliance on the magistrate's probable cause decision.
The good-faith inquiry focuses upon whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate's authorization.
The good-faith exception does not apply because the officer's reliance on the warrant is not objectively reasonable: (1) when the issuing magistrate was misled by false information intentionally or negligently given by the affiant; (2) when the magistrate totally abandoned her judicial role and failed to act in a neutral and detached manner; (3) when the warrant was based on an affidavit "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable"; and (4) when a reasonable law enforcement officer could not rely on a facially deficient warrant.
State v. Nastrom , 2008 ND 110, 750 N.W.2d 432
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Under three-year statute of limitations for felony prosecution, willful failure to pay child support is committed when there is a failure to pay child support, which includes arrearages, in an amount ordered by a court or other governmental agency having authority to issue orders.
Lawrence v. Delkamp , 2008 ND 111, 750 N.W.2d 452
(Joined in concurrence)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Rule 43(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., permits, and does not mandate, courts to allow presentation of testimony by contemporaneous transmission.
The admissibility of telephonic testimony is conditioned on good cause in compelling and unexpected circumstances and the availability of appropriate safeguards.
It is within the district court's discretion to deny a party's request to allow telephonic testimony in the absence of appropriate safeguards, and it is within the district court's discretion to determine that having someone onsite to administer an oath or affirmation is an appropriate safeguard required for the admissibility of telephonic testimony.
Sandvick v. LaCrosse , 2008 ND 77, 747 N.W.2d 519
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The crucial elements of a partnership are (1) an intention to be partners, (2) co-ownership of the business, and (3) a profit motive.
For a business enterprise to constitute a joint venture, the following four elements must be present: (1) contribution by the parties of money, property, time, or skill in some common undertaking, but the contributions need not be equal or of the same nature; (2) a proprietary interest and right of mutual control over the engaged property; (3) an express or implied agreement for the sharing of profits, and usually, but not necessarily, of losses; and (4) an express or implied contract showing a joint venture was formed. There is, however, no fixed formula for identifying the joint venture relationship in all cases, and each case will depend upon its own unique facts.
Principles of partnership law apply to the joint venture relationship.
Joint venturers, like copartners, owe to one another, while the enterprise continues, the duty of the finest loyalty.
State v. Jacobson , 2008 ND 73, 747 N.W.2d 481
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
An appearance of partiality requiring a judge's disqualification does not automatically result from a judge's casual or social acquaintance with a witness.
A disqualified judge whose withdrawal from a case is not mandatory has the option of either withdrawing or disclosing to the parties on the record the basis for his disqualification.
A party seeking to disqualify a judge from a proceeding must file a timely motion.
A party who knows the facts that would form the basis of disqualification prior to entry of a judgment against him waives his right to disqualification of a judge by failing to request disqualification until after the judge enters a judgment adverse to that party.
Erickson v. Brown , 2008 ND 57, 747 N.W.2d 34
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it discloses with certainty the impossibility of proving a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A claim for fraud applies to parties to a contract while a claim for deceit applies where there is no contract between the parties.
A promise made without any intention of performing may be deceit.
Legal issues entitling a party to a jury trial are tried to a jury before disposition of equitable issues triable to the court, and whenever the issues are so interrelated that a decision in the nonjury portion might affect the decision of the jury portion, the jury portion must be tried first.
There is no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment context.
Nonprejudicial errors constitute harmless error and are not grounds for reversal.
Niemann v. Niemann , 2008 ND 54, 746 N.W.2d 3
(Joined in concurrence)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A court does not reach the consideration of the best interest factors, which include the domestic violence presumption, unless the court first finds a significant change in circumstances.
If domestic violence exists under the definition in N.D.C.C. 14-07.1-01 but does not rise to the level necessary to invoke the presumption contained in N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(j), there may nevertheless be a change of circumstances which may justify a change in custody under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6.
Huwe v. Workforce Safety and Insurance , 2008 ND 47, 746 N.W.2d 158
(Joined in dissent)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Although WSI has the authority to weigh the credibility of medical evidence and resolve conflicting medical opinions, it may not do so in an unreasoned manner but must consider the entire record, clarify inconsistencies, and adequately explain its reasons for disregarding medical evidence favorable to the claimant.
A claimant reapplying for disability benefits under N.D.C.C. 65-05-08(1) bears the burden of showing a significant change in his compensable medical condition and an actual wage loss caused by the significant change in his compensable medical condition.
State v. Schmalz , 2008 ND 27, 744 N.W.2d 734
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances relied upon by the judge who issues the warrant would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe the contraband or evidence sought probably will be found in the place to be searched.
"Bare-bones" information is not sufficient to satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrant.
The determination of whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is a question of law.
Simply because a warrant application contains some information that is not relevant, or is, in and of itself, insufficient to create probable cause, does not necessarily mean probable cause did not exist to validly issue the warrant.
While the our state constitution may, in certain instances, provide greater individual rights than those afforded under the federal constitution, like the Fourth Amendment, Article I, section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution is not implicated unless a reasonable expectation of privacy is invaded.
Frueh v. Frueh , 2008 ND 26, 745 N.W.2d 362
(Joined in concurrence)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
In considering whether the moving party has established a prima facie case warranting an evidentiary hearing on a motion to change custody, a district court may not weigh conflicting issues of fact raised in the parties' affidavits.
On appeal, the denial of an evidentiary hearing on a motion to change custody is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
City of Grand Forks v. Mitchell , 2008 ND 5, 743 N.W.2d 800
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A police officer's stop of a vehicle bearing no license plates with a white 8 « x 11 sheet of paper with a date written in black marker posted in its rear window that the officer did not recognize as an authentic temporary registration certificate was constitutionally permissible because the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion of a violation of the motor vehicle registration law.
A police officer's subjective intent is not germane for purposes of the objective inquiry used to determine whether a reasonable and articulable suspicion existed that an individual was violating the law.
Manitoba Public Ins. Corp. v. Dakota Fire Ins. Co. , 2007 ND 206, 743 N.W.2d 788
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A procedural remedy is not a vested right and is subject to repeal, modification, or change.
Intercept Corp. v. Calima Financial LLC , 2007 ND 180, 741 N.W.2d 209
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The corporate veil of a limited liability company may be pierced if the same conditions and circumstances under which the corporate veil of a corporation may be pierced under North Dakota law are present.
A lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense is waived if it is neither made by motion nor included in a responsive pleading.
Axtmann v. Chillemi , 2007 ND 179, 740 N.W.2d 838
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The officers and directors of a corporation generally are not liable for the ordinary debts of the corporation, but a corporation's corporate veil may be disregarded when the corporation has insufficient capitalization for purposes of the corporate undertaking.
A district court's decision to pierce a corporate veil and impose personal liability on an officer or director is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
Lee v. Lee , 2007 ND 147, 738 N.W.2d 479
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to order a party to pay spousal support beyond the party's original spousal support obligation, even when the original obligation has already ended, when reconsideration of an interrelated child support obligation could constitute a change in circumstances for purposes of the spousal support obligation.
A change in a child support obligation may constitute a material change in circumstances requiring reconsideration of an interrelated spousal support obligation.
Attorney's fees will not be awarded absent a showing of need or a showing that an appeal was frivolous.
Estate of Allmaras , 2007 ND 130, 737 N.W.2d 612
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A conservator has discretionary authority to manage the protected person's estate, subject to the conservator's fiduciary responsibilities and taking into account any known estate plan of the protected person.
A payable-on-death beneficiary has no present interest in the account, no right to prevent the depositor from removing the account funds and effectively destroying the beneficiary designation, and no right to preclude the depositor from changing or removing the beneficiaries on the account.
Graner v. Graner , 2007 ND 139, 738 N.W.2d 9
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A district court's decision on a custodial parent's motion to relocate out-of-state will be reversed on appeal only if it is clearly erroneous.
Increased visitation expenses and distance are not a sufficient basis to deny a custodial parent's motion to relocate.
A court may not modify custody within two years of an order establishing custody, unless the court finds the modification is in the child's best interests and there is willful denial of visitation, the child's environment endangers the child's physical or emotional health or impairs the child's emotional development, or the noncustodial parent has had primary physical care of the child for longer than six months.
State v. Vantreece , 2007 ND 126, 736 N.W.2d 428
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Under N.D.C.C. 12.1-20-03(1)(a), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant, by force or threat of death or serious harm, compelled the victim to submit to a sexual act.
In a criminal case charging the defendant with having sex by force, the complainant's mental capacity is relevant to the question of the extent of force required to compel the victim to submit.
Scheer v. Altru Health System , 2007 ND 104, 734 N.W.2d 778
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not appealable; however, a dismissal without prejudice may be final and appealable if the plaintiff cannot cure the defect that led to dismissal, or if the dismissal has the practical effect of terminating the litigation in the plaintiff's chosen forum.
North Dakota's medical malpractice law requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant with an admissible expert affidavit that supports a prima facie case of malpractice within three months of serving the summons.
The trial court may set a later date for serving the affidavit for good cause shown by the plaintiff.
The trial court must dismiss the case without prejudice, on motion by the defendant, for a plaintiff's failure to timely serve the affidavit or move for good cause.
A plaintiff may move for good cause as late as in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Chamley v. Khokha , 2007 ND 69, 730 N.W.2d 864
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Any person rendering aid or assistance with an expectation of remuneration is not protected by North Dakota's Good Samaritan Act.
A doctor who is a salaried employee of a hospital and performs a procedure in the hospital has an expectation of remuneration.
Gilbert v. Gilbert , 2007 ND 66, 730 N.W.2d 833
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A custodial parent seeking to change the residence of a child to another state has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the move is in the child's best interest.
It is reversible error for a court to fail to give sufficient credence to the importance of keeping the custodial family intact when deciding whether to allow a custodial parent to relocate with the child to another state.
State v. Kieper , 2008 ND 65, 747 N.W.2d 497
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Mere suspicion that criminal activity is taking place, which may warrant further investigation, does not rise to the level of probable cause to support issuance of a search warrant.
Issues not raised before the district court will not be considered for the first time on appeal.
State v. Bachmeier , 2007 ND 42, 729 N.W.2d 141
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Observed traffic violations provide law enforcement officers with the basis for a stop.
The exclusionary rule is only designed to safeguard an individual's rights through its deterrent effect, and it is not a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.
North Dakota law authorizes law enforcement personnel operating a class A emergency vehicle to exceed the posted speed limit to pursue a suspected violator, so long as it can be done without danger to life or property.
Riverwood Commercial Park v. Standard Oil Company , 2007 ND 36, 729 N.W.2d 101
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The law of the case doctrine applies only in the immediate case, and does not apply to bar claims or issues in a subsequent, separate action.
Res judicata claim preclusion applies to whole claims, whether litigated or not, whereas collateral estoppel issue preclusion applies to particular issues that have been actually contested and litigated in a prior action.
Res judicata claim preclusion does not bar claims that could not have been brought in the prior action.
Collateral estoppel issue preclusion applies only if determination of the issue in the prior action was necessary and essential to support the judgment.
A finding of fact that is not ruled upon on appeal because it was not necessary for the appellate court's decision is not conclusive between the parties in a subsequent action.
Dismissal of an action for failure to join an indispensable party under N.D.R.Civ.P. 19 is not an adjudication on the merits and cannot be granted with prejudice.
State v. Fischer , 2007 ND 22, 727 N.W.2d 750
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
An order denying an extension of time to file the notice of appeal terminates the appeal, and thus it is reviewed more closely than an order granting an extension.
The district court must find that either excusable neglect or good cause exists before granting an extension of the time for appeal.
The district court has likely abused its discretion if it does not provide an explanation for the decision to grant or deny an extension.
Whitecalfe v. ND Dept. of Transportation , 2007 ND 32, 727 N.W.2d 779
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The Department of Transportation must meet the basic and mandatory provisions of the statute to have authority to revoke driving privileges.
When a licensee is arrested for driving under the influence and receives an initial notice of revocation of driving privileges, the licensee is not denied due process simply because the initial notice does not include a statement of the arresting officer's probable cause.
Klein v. Larson , 2006 ND 236, 724 N.W.2d 565
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
In an initial custody decision, the trial court must award custody to the parent who will better promote the best interests and welfare of the child.
A parent's numerous prior criminal offenses, although not involving crimes of moral turpitude, are relevant evidence of the parent's moral fitness.
State v. Doohen , 2006 ND 239, 724 N.W.2d 158
(Joined in dissent)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A warrantless search is unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Under the automobile exception, law enforcement may search for illegal contraband without a warrant when probable cause exists.
A police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists.
Probable cause demands not that an officer be sure or certain but only that the facts available to a reasonably cautious individual would warrant a belief that certain items may be contraband or useful as evidence of a crime.
Sandberg v. American Family Ins. , 2006 ND 198, 722 N.W.2d 359
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The requirements of a statute may become part of an insurance policy.
An insured's unauthorized settlement with Workforce Safety and Insurance does not adversely affect an insurer, because the settlement does not affect the insurer's right to a reduction in damages payable to the insured for uninsured motorist coverage by the amount paid or payable for workers' compensation benefits.
An amount is payable for workers' compensation benefits if it would have been paid to the workers' compensation claimant.
Leet v. City of Minot , 2006 ND 191, 721 N.W.2d 398
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
For recreational use immunity statutes to apply, a person's presence on the landowner's property open for public recreation must be for "recreational purposes," which includes any activity engaged in for the purpose of exercise, relaxation, pleasure, or education.
A vendor's employee who was present at the City's auditorium for purposes of his employment is not engaged in any activity for the purpose of exercise, relaxation, pleasure, or education.
City of Fargo v. Komad , 2006 ND 177, 720 N.W.2d 619
(Joined in dissent)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A defendant's constitutional right to be present at trial is met when the defendant appears and is tried in municipal court and there is no constitutional right to be present for trial anew on appeal in district court.
Under the N.D. Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant convicted in municipal court has a right to be present for a trial anew in district court on appeal.
Proceeding with a trial anew on appeal to district court, when the defendant is absent, is not harmless error.
Dahl v. Messmer , 2006 ND 166, 719 N.W.2d 341
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
On appeal, the substantive evidentiary standard of proof is considered when reviewing a motion for summary judgment.
Fraud is never presumed, but must be proved by evidence that is clear and convincing.
A party seeking to reform a contract must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the written agreement does not fully or truly state the agreement the parties intended to make.
General expressions of opinion by a seller, commending of the thing he is selling, are not actionable even though not entirely true.
Generally, statements of value and predictions of future earnings or profits fall within the class of statements whose truth or falsity cannot be precisely determined and which are not, therefore, actionable as misrepresentations of fact.
Marquette v. Marquette , 2006 ND 154, 719 N.W.2d 321
(Concurring and dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Visitation provisions which give the custodial parent total control over the time and manner of the noncustodial parent's visitation are not encouraged.
When a district court provides no indication of the evidentiary and theoretical basis for its restricted visitation decision, the reviewing court is left to speculate whether appropriate factors were considered and the law was properly applied.
Marital property valuations within the range of the evidence are not clearly erroneous.
Pensions and retirement benefits are marital assets subject to distribution by the court.
Gietzen v. Gabel , 2006 ND 153, 718 N.W.2d 552
(Joined in concurrence)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
When there is credible evidence of domestic violence, it is the predominate factor in a child custody decision.
Specific findings and conclusions are required when a district court addresses whether evidence of domestic violence triggers the presumption against awarding custody of a child to a perpetrator of domestic violence.
When reciprocal domestic violence is claimed, a district court must make specific findings on the degree of violent behavior by each parent.
Wilson v. Ibarra , 2006 ND 151, 718 N.W.2d 568
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
To justify a termination of all visitation, physical or emotional harm resulting from the visitation must be demonstrated in detail.
Molitor v. Molitor , 2006 ND 163, 718 N.W.2d 13
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A trial court's custody decision is a finding of fact that will not be set aside on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.
A trial court's findings of fact in child custody cases should be stated with sufficient specificity to enable the appellate court to understand the factual basis for the court's decision.
The failure to raise the issue of judicial bias in the trial court precludes appellate court review on appeal.
When a party seeking modification of custody within two years of issuance of a custody order does not prove any of the grounds listed under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.6(5) as a basis for modification, the trial court does not err in denying a motion to change custody.
DeMers v. DeMers , 2006 ND 142, 717 N.W.2d 545
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
The statutory presumption against awarding custody to the perpetrator of domestic violence applies when the district court finds there is credible evidence of domestic violence and at least one incident of domestic violence resulted in serious bodily injury or involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or there is a pattern of domestic violence within a reasonable proximity to the proceeding.
A party waives the right to appeal a divorce judgment if she unconditionally, voluntarily, and consciously accepts the benefits of the judgment.
The district court must adequately explain a substantial disparity in a property distribution.
Steen and Berg Co. v. Berg , 2006 ND 86, 713 N.W.2d 87
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A primary objective of a nonclaim statute is the expeditious and orderly processing of decedents' estates, and if claims against a decedent's estate are not timely filed, the claims are barred as a matter of law.
Casting a claim in terms of title to property is insufficient to avoid the time limitations of the nonclaim statute if the gist of the claim sounds in tort or in contract.
Sisk v. Sisk , 2006 ND 55, 711 N.W.2d 203
(Dissenting)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
Visitation between a non-custodial parent and child is presumed to be in that child's best interests but may be curtailed or eliminated if likely to endanger a child's emotional or physical health.
A trial court must award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the non-custodial parent if there has been a willful and persistent denial of visitation.
Interest of M.M. , 2005 ND 219, 707 N.W.2d 78
(Joined in dissent)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A district court's finding that a person is mentally ill and requires treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.
A district court's finding that no less restrictive treatment programs other than hospitalization are appropriate, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
A district court's order for involuntary hospitalization must be based on clear and convincing evidence that there is a serious risk the individual will harm himself, others, or property if not hospitalized.
To authorize involuntary treatment with medication, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the prescribed medication is clinically appropriate and necessary, that the patient was offered the treatment and refused it, that the prescribed medication is the least restrictive form necessary to meet the patient's needs, and that the benefits of the treatment outweigh known risks.
Wright v. State , 2005 ND 217, 707 N.W.2d 242
(Concurred in result)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must prove counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the defendant was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance.
To demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel's deficient performance, a defendant must establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
State v. Hernandez , 2005 ND 214, 707 N.W.2d 449
(Concurring)
Highlight of the Opinion of the Court:
A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a witness is qualified as an expert and whether the witness's testimony will assist the trier of fact.
A party's failure to object to evidence admitted at trial generally waives the party's right to complain on appeal about the admission of the evidence.
A trial court has discretion to decide whether a party has opened the door for the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
A jury is generally presumed to follow a curative instruction, and a curative instruction to disregard certain evidence is generally sufficient to remove improper prejudice.
A trial court has broad discretion to balance the probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice.
To establish a due process violation for the destruction of evidence, a defendant must establish bad faith by the State, which means the evidence was deliberately destroyed by or at the direction of a State agent who intended to thwart and deprive the defense of the information.

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 09/05/2008