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.
Vogt v. State2022 ND 163 Docket No.: 20220058 Filing Date: 8/18/2022 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight:The North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable in post-conviction relief proceedings to the extent they do not conflict with the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act.
Application of the newly discovered evidence exception to the N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01 statute of limitations for post-conviction relief petitions requires the petitioner allege that the newly discovered evidence would establish the petitioner did not engage in the criminal conduct for which he or she was convicted.
Issues that were not raised in the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.
State v. Doglod2022 ND 162 Docket No.: 20220035 Filing Date: 8/18/2022 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A criminal judgment entered after a jury found the defendant guilty of terrorizing and criminal trespass is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a).
Dieterle v. Dieterle n/k/a Hansen, et al.2022 ND 161 Docket No.: 20220094 Filing Date: 8/18/2022 Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other) Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:Orders denying a party permission to file new motions are not appealable.
An order imposing attorney’s fees may be appealable depending on whether the district court intended the order to be final.
A demand for a change of judge is invalid if it is filed more than ten days after the notice of assignment of a judge.
State v. Lyman2022 ND 160 Docket No.: 20220023 Filing Date: 8/18/2022 Case Type: DUI/DUS Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight:Whether to grant a mistrial is within the district court’s discretion, which this Court will not reverse on appeal absent an abuse of such discretion.
In reviewing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, this Court first determines whether the prosecutor’s actions were misconduct, then examines whether the misconduct had prejudicial effect.
The purpose of an opening statement is to inform the jury about the case and to outline to the jury the proof the State expects to present.
Curative jury instructions will generally remove prejudice caused by improper statements because the jury is presumed to follow the district court’s instruction.