State v. Krall 2026 ND 7
Docket No.: 20240233
Filing Date: 1/15/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight: In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we look only to the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict to ascertain if there is substantial evidence to warrant the conviction.
A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A conviction may be justified on circumstantial evidence alone if the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A verdict based on circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts.
Jury instructions are reviewed as a whole to determine if they correctly and adequately inform the jury. Selecting and considering only a part of the instructions is not proper.
An error in a jury instruction provides grounds for reversal only when the instructions as a whole are erroneous, relate to a central subject in the case, and affect the defendant's substantial right.
|
Ziemann v. Grosz 2026 ND 6
Docket No.: 20250164
Filing Date: 1/15/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair
Highlight: The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the district court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court's mandate into effect according to its terms.
An appellate court retains authority to decide whether the district court on remand fully carried out terms of its mandate.
|
Highlight: A party does not have a right to appeal if there is no final judgment or proper N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification.
|
Highlight: An order from a district court granting a motion to disqualify an attorney is not appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3) or the collateral order doctrine.
Supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised to review an order granting a motion to disqualify an attorney because a civil litigant has a protected interest in counsel of the litigant's choice, and an appeal from a final judgment is not an adequate remedy for erroneous disqualification.
When a district court finds a lawyer-client relationship between an attorney and a company based on objective manifestations, including providing legal advice to the company's officers and employees, the district court does not abuse its discretion in disqualifying the attorney under N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a)(1) if the attorney represents clients on both sides of the litigation.
A district court commits legal error by concluding an attorney has a lawyer-client relationship with a company solely because the attorney signed and prosecuted derivative claims brought by a shareholder on behalf of the company.
An error is harmless if it does not affect the outcome of the case or a party's substantial rights.
|
Rangel v. State 2026 ND 3
Docket No.: 20250281
Filing Date: 1/15/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam
Highlight: An order granting a motion for summary disposition of postconviction relief applications is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
|
State v. Mogren 2026 ND 2
Docket No.: 20250266
Filing Date: 1/15/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight: When a container has been previously opened by a government agent under lawful authority, and there is no substantial likelihood its contents have changed, a warrantless search of that container by law enforcement does not violate the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution.
Law enforcement officers are legally present in a home when the occupant consents to their entry
|
Pederson v. State 2026 ND 1
Docket No.: 20250208
Filing Date: 1/15/2026
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight: Ineffective assistance of counsel claims ordinarily are unsuited for summary disposition and denial without an evidentiary hearing.
Summary disposition of an applicant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims is error when the State does not move for summary disposition and instead requests a hearing on the claims.
A court's subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, including during postconviction relief.
A judge presented with a motion for disqualification must determine whether a reasonable person could, on the basis of all the facts, reasonably question the judge's impartiality.
|
