Disciplinary Board v. Pilch2023 ND 162 Docket No.: 20230152 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Civil) Author: Per Curiam
Disciplinary Board v. Pilch2023 ND 161 Docket No.: 20230147 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Civil) Author: Per Curiam
Disciplinary Board v. Overboe2023 ND 160 Docket No.: 20230090 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Civil) Author: Per Curiam
Disciplinary Board v. Baird2023 ND 159 Docket No.: 20230075 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (Civil) Author: Per Curiam
Interest of A.M.2023 ND 158 Docket No.: 20230209 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:Order terminating parental rights summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7).
Interest of A.B.2023 ND 157 Docket No.: 20230197 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: TERMINATION/PARENTAL RIGHTS Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A juvenile court order terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
Sayler v. Sayler2023 ND 156 Docket No.: 20230004 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other) Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan
Highlight:A motion to relocate is not necessary when residential responsibility has not previously been established. Therefore, consideration of the Stout-Hawkinson factors is not necessary when the district court originally determines parental responsibility of parents living in different states.
The purpose or motive for a unilateral move is one of the many factors courts should consider and weigh when determining parental responsibility.
State v. Petersen2023 ND 155 Docket No.: 20230049 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: DUI/DUS Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:Law enforcement exceeds its community caretaking function when it opens the door of a sleeping occupant’s parked semi-truck and steps onto the running boards in an attempt to gather information without first attempting to get a response from outside of the vehicle.
Under prong two of the inevitable discovery doctrine, the State must prove that the evidence would have been found without the unlawful activity and must show how the discovery of the evidence would have occurred.
Estate of Froemke2023 ND 154 Docket No.: 20220321 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: PROBATE - WILLS - TRUSTS Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:A witness must demonstrate some basis for forming an intelligent judgment as to the value of land before offering lay opinion testimony about the value of the land.
A property owner may present opinion testimony about the value of his property even when the opinion relies upon information from another.
Out-of-court statements are non-hearsay if they are offered for their independent legal significance where the utterance of the words is, in itself, an operative fact which gives rise to legal consequences.
Highlight:In a negligence action, a proximate cause is a cause which, as a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any controlling intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which it would not have occurred.
A court will not disturb a jury’s damages verdict unless the verdict is so excessive or inadequate as to be without evidentiary support.
The jury must determine the damages to which a party is entitled within reasonable limits, based upon the evidence. If those limits have been exceeded, it is the court’s duty to make a proper reduction or grant a new trial.
State v. Kollie2023 ND 152 Docket No.: 20220343 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: HOMICIDE Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:A sidebar addressing routine evidentiary or administrative matters during trial, even without an adequate record, is not a closure implicating the public trial right.
The plain language of the statute criminalizing murder provides alternative means of committing the offense. A jury is not required to unanimously agree upon which of the alternative means of committing murder it believes the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
For purposes of double jeopardy, criminal offenses are different if each offense contains an element not contained in the other offense.
Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.
Rights of a deceased victim may be exercised by family members and others as provided in N.D. Const. art. I, § 25(4). Section 25 does not provide for the court’s enforcement of a crime victim’s rights on behalf of a deceased victim absent the assertion by an individual listed under § 25(4).
An erroneous evidentiary ruling is disregarded as harmless error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(a) if it does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.
Wootan v. State2023 ND 151 Docket No.: 20230036 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:Once the State moves for summary judgment on a post-conviction application, the defendant must provide evidentiary support for their application in response to the State’s motion.
Summary judgment on a post-conviction application is proper when the defendant fails to provide evidentiary support to show a genuine issue of material fact.
Black Elk v. State2023 ND 150 Docket No.: 20230035 Filing Date: 8/17/2023 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:A part must preserve an issue in district court before it can be reviewed on appeal. A party must preserve a claim of error, as it relates to the admissibility of evidence, by objecting or moving to strike the evidence on record and stating a specific ground for exclusion.
This Court will exercise discretion rarely to consider issues not preserved in post-conviction proceedings, and will do so only if the error is plain and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
A statement is not hearsay when it is offered simply to prove the statement was made. A petitioner at a post-conviction hearing is permitted to testify about the advice given to them by counsel as long as the testimony is submitted to simply show the advice was verbalized.
Advising a defendant that the defendant can deal with a material piece of evidence after a defendant has pled guilty and been sentenced by simply retracting or withdrawing the plea falls below an objectively reasonable standard of a defense attorney.