To see an opinion, click on the "View Opinion" button. Opinions display in a printable format. Hyperlinks to all North Dakota opinions and rules cited in an opinion are included in the text: hover over the citation and click to follow the hyperlink.
State v. Smith2023 ND 82 Docket No.: 20220162 Filing Date: 4/26/2023 Case Type: ASSAULT Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight:When a party asserts prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal, this Court may review for obvious error.
Questioning by the State regarding relevant evidence in the case may not amount to a prosecutor stating his personal belief on a defendant’s claim of self-defense nor prosecutorial misconduct.
Questioning by the State will not warrant reversal when such questions were invited by the defense.
Questions regarding potential weaknesses of a defendant’s case does not amount to burden shifting, particularly when the jury is reminded numerous times throughout trial that the burden is on the State.
Non-public exchanges, such as brief sidebars or bench conferences, between counsel and the court on routine evidentiary issues, technical legal issues, and administrative issues are not public trial violations.
The district court does not abuse its discretion by allowing expert testimony when it found the testimony was relevant, not overly cumulative, and properly noticed.
State v. Schaf2023 ND 81 Docket No.: 20220323 Filing Date: 4/26/2023 Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:The district court decides the qualifications of the witness to express an opinion on a given topic. The decision whether to admit expert witness testimony rests within the court’s discretion.
For a lesser-included-offense instruction, there must be evidence on which a jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser. It also must be impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser.
While a sexual contact charge may be a lesser included offense contained within a sexual act charge, the subsections of both offenses must be compatible and the evidence must support an inclusion.
An alleged error with jury instructions will be reviewed for obvious error when the instructions were not objected to at trial and proposed instructions were not provided to the district court.
Voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to a crime of general intent.
State v. Hannesson2023 ND 80 Docket No.: 20220244 Filing Date: 4/26/2023 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight:Ordering a mistrial is an extreme remedy that is only appropriate when there is a fundamental defect or occurrence at trial that makes it evident that continuing would be productive of manifest injustice.
Curative jury instructions will generally remove prejudice caused by a prosecutor’s improper statements because a jury is presumed to follow the district court’s instructions.
Hanson v. Hettervig, et al.2023 ND 79 Docket No.: 20220261 Filing Date: 4/26/2023 Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other) Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:An order of contempt and an amended order of contempt and award of attorney’s fees are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).
Fietzek v. Fietzek2023 ND 78 Docket No.: 20220236 Filing Date: 4/26/2023 Case Type: DIVORCE/PROPERTY DIV./ALIMONY Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:A district court’s finding on a valuation of real property is not clearly erroneous if it is within the range of evidence presented.
A district court’s finding on economic fault will not be reversed unless the finding is clearly erroneous.
A district court has broad discretion to award attorney’s fees.
An award of spousal support must be supported by sufficient findings.
State v. Frederick2023 ND 77 Docket No.: 20220070 Filing Date: 4/26/2023 Case Type: ASSAULT Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:In the instance of an alleged public trial violation, an appellant must demonstrate the public was excluded from a proceeding taking place during trial, and that the proceeding was substantive in nature.
A district court closing a proceeding to the public is significantly different from the court failing to make an adequate record of a bench conference conducted in an open trial. An inadequate record is not equivalent to a closed trial.
To demonstrate that an inadequate record affects a defendant’s substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate the record cannot be adequately supplemented or reconstructed.
A violation of Appendix 1, Standard 7(d), N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 9 is not per se reversible error.
