The Supreme Court has issued 21 new opinions. The summaries are below.
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. Bee2021 ND 61 Docket No.: 20200261 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures. But a warrantless search is not unreasonable if the search of the home falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.
When no exception exists, any evidence seized is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and must be suppressed.
State v. Glasser2021 ND 60 Docket No.: 20200220 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:Any attempt by the trial court to amend or modify a final judgment is void unless it is made upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment.
Highlight:In an appeal from a bench trial, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law are fully reviewable.
In a bench trial, the trial court decides credibility issues and the supreme court on appeal does not second-guess the trial court on its credibility determinations.
A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be reversed on appeal unless it has abused its discretion.
Business records may be properly admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
Indemnity is an equitable remedy which permits a party to recover reimbursement from another for the discharge of a liability that, as between the two parties, should have been discharged by the other.
Highlight:Section 32-15-06, N.D.C.C., permits entry upon the land to make examinations, surveys, and maps thereof, which is preliminary to the condemnation action itself.
Placement of survey monuments on land for as long as three years is not an innocuous entry and seriously impinges upon or impairs the rights of the landowner to the use and enjoyment of the land. A physical occupation of this duration goes beyond the minimally invasive examination and testing permitted under N.D.C.C. § 32-15-06.
Ryberg, et al. v. Landsiedel2021 ND 56 Docket No.: 20200189 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: PERSONAL INJURY Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies.
The law looks with favor upon compromise and settlement of controversies between parties, and where the settlement is fairly entered into, it should be considered as disposing of all disputed matters which were contemplated by the parties at the time of the settlement.
When a settlement is fairly made before trial, it takes on the character of a contract between the parties and is final and conclusive, and based on good consideration.
Courts will not enforce a contract which is vague, indefinite, or uncertain, nor will they make a new contract for the parties. An oral contract can be enforced only when the parties have agreed on its essential terms.
State v. Richter2021 ND 55 Docket No.: 20200351 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: MISC. STATUTORY OFFENSE (FELONY) Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
Highlight:Attempted promotion of obscenity to minors is not a cognizable offense.
State v. Neugebauer2021 ND 54 Docket No.: 20200278 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: HOMICIDE Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:Once a judgment is final, the district court generally loses jurisdiction to alter, amend, or modify that judgment. Unless grounds are provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment, any attempt by the district court to amend or modify a final judgment is void.
Any party who has timely served and filed a brief requests oral argument, the request must be granted. If a trial court errs in denying a party’s motion without oral argument, the remedy is a remand to allow for oral argument.
Highlight:Whether a vehicle has been furnished for regular use is a conclusion of fact.
A finding of fact will not be overturned on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
Reasonable time and place restrictions on the use of a vehicle could lead to a conclusion the vehicle was not furnished for a person’s regular use.
State v. Borland2021 ND 52 Docket No.: 20200053 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: HOMICIDE Author: Jensen, Jon J.
Highlight:A defendant waives the constitutional protection against being placed in double jeopardy after a verdict or judgment against them is set aside at their own instance, either by motion in trial court or upon successful appeal.
The circumstances under which such a defendant may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him are limited to those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.
When analyzing a constitutional speedy trial claim, this Court considers the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the accused’s assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the accused.
Defendant who pled “not guilty” was not entitled to a jury instruction or special verdict form seeking a finding of whether a plea of “once in jeopardy” applied.
Tebay v. State2021 ND 51 Docket No.: 20200316 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:A district court order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).
Gerving v. Gerving2021 ND 50 Docket No.: 20200291 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: CHILD CUST & SUPPORT (Div.\Other) Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:The judgment of the district court is summarily affirm as not clearly erroneous.
Under Rule 30 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, attorney’s fees and costs on appeal are appropriate only if the claim is flagrantly groundless, devoid of merit, or demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which could be seen as evidence of bad faith.
State v. Walbert2021 ND 49 Docket No.: 20200197 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:Courts possess broad power to control their courtrooms, minimize disruptive behavior, and maintain security.
Restricting movement in and out of a courtroom during testimony of a child witness as an attempt to minimize disruptions did not constitute a closure but instead was within the court’s managerial authority.
Gil v. WSI2021 ND 48 Docket No.: 20200253 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: WORKERS COMPENSATION Author: Crothers, Daniel John
Highlight:Timely filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and procedural rules may not be used to enlarge periods of time conferring jurisdiction that are definitely fixed by statute.
Saucedo v. State2021 ND 47 Docket No.: 20200265 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: Per Curiam
Highlight:An order denying an application for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).
State v. Stands2021 ND 46 Docket No.: 20200179 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: DRUGS/CONTRABAND Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
Highlight:Sufficient competent evidence existed to show a defendant consented to a search of his person when he shrugged, mumbled, nodded, and lifted his hands.
Requests for consent to search during a traffic stop are permissible so long as they do not prolong and measurably extend the duration of the stop.
An officer may extend or expand the scope of a traffic stop if reasonable suspicion exists or the encounter becomes consensual.
Campbell v. State2021 ND 45 Docket No.: 20200227 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
Highlight:The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact and is fully reviewable on appeal.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are ordinarily unsuited to summary disposition without an evidentiary hearing.
Solberg v. McKennett2021 ND 44 Docket No.: 20200207 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: OTHER (Civil) Author: VandeWalle, Gerald W.
Highlight:Determining when a cause of action accrues is normally a question of fact, but it becomes a question of law when the material facts are undisputed.
Under the discovery rule the accrual of a claim is postponed until the plaintiff knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the wrongful act and its resulting injury.
A party alleging fraud must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.
Breeze v. NDDOT2021 ND 43 Docket No.: 20200267 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: TRANSPORTATION DEPT. Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:An officer must be in an immediate pursuit of a person who is endeavoring to avoid arrest for hot pursuit to apply.
State v. Moore2021 ND 42 Docket No.: 20200080 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant’s failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review.
A district court may conduct proceedings in chambers in some circumstances, including temporary use of a courtroom as if in chambers. But it is the type of proceeding and not the location of the proceeding that determines the need for the Waller analysis. Jury selection, including proceedings relating to juror questionnaires and challenges for cause, are part of the criminal trial and generally must be held in open court consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
A court’s closure of trial proceedings without having obtained a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver and without having considered the Waller factors is obvious error.
A speculative risk to a witness’s counseling relationship with the victim is insufficient standing alone to satisfy the Waller requirement for an overriding interest.
State v. Martinez2021 ND 42 Docket No.: 20190407 Filing Date: 3/24/2021 Case Type: SEXUAL OFFENSE Author: Tufte, Jerod E.
Highlight:A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant’s failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review.
A district court may conduct proceedings in chambers in some circumstances, including temporary use of a courtroom as if in chambers. But it is the type of proceeding and not the location of the proceeding that determines the need for the Waller analysis. Jury selection, including proceedings relating to juror questionnaires and challenges for cause, are part of the criminal trial and generally must be held in open court consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.
A court’s closure of trial proceedings without having obtained a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver and without having considered the Waller factors is obvious error.
A speculative risk to a witness’s counseling relationship with the victim is insufficient standing alone to satisfy the Waller requirement for an overriding interest.
