Opinions

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, ECJD 2025 ND 192
Docket No.: 20250363
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250152
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250153
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250154
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250155
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Wallette 2025 ND 190
Docket No.: 20250073
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the North Dakota Constitution respectively prohibit infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" and "cruel or unusual punishments." A punishment in a non-capital case that is grossly disproportionate to the offense is cruel and unusual. The disproportionality principle is narrow. It forbids only extreme sentences.

Generally, unless there is a statute to the contrary, it is within the trial court's sound discretion whether a sentence should run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

The Court will review a claim that a sentence is illegal even when it was not raised below, but a significant distinction exists between claims of error regarding a sentence imposed in a procedurally or factually flawed manner, which can be waived, from an unauthorized sentence that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in the particular case.

Smith v. State 2025 ND 189
Docket No.: 20250127
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: An attorney's representation of a criminal defendant fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness when the attorney failed to exclude certain evidence
under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) prior to trial, failed to object to the evidence at trial, failed
to request a limiting or curative instruction after the evidence was introduced,
and failed to develop an obvious error argument regarding the evidence on
direct appeal.

The district court erred in concluding a criminal defendant was prejudiced by
counsel's representation without first assessing counsel's errors within the
context of the remaining evidence properly presented and the overall conduct of
the trial to determine whether there was a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

The case is remanded to supplement the record with additional evidence from
the original record, if possible, and to permit the district court to address all of
the grounds for relief raised by the applicant in his postconviction proceeding.

State v. Miller 2025 ND 188
Docket No.: 20250174
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

In probation revocation proceedings, a district court need not make factual findings explaining its decision to revoke probation and sentence incarceration instead of alternative sanctions. On appeal, a party may not challenge an order or judgment not designated in the notice of appeal. A party may not collaterally attack a final decision, that was not appealed, in subsequent proceedings.

State v. Miller 2025 ND 188
Docket No.: 20250175
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Orders revoking probation and resentencing defendant for aggravated assault and violations of a domestic violence protection order are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

In probation revocation proceedings, a district court need not make factual findings explaining its decision to revoke probation and sentence incarceration instead of alternative sanctions. On appeal, a party may not challenge an order or judgment not designated in the notice of appeal. A party may not collaterally attack a final decision, that was not appealed, in subsequent proceedings.

Overton v. Overton 2025 ND 187
Docket No.: 20250189
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Procedural due process does not require the district court to ensure incarcerated parties to civil litigation are present at hearings.

A hearing for a domestic violence protection order does not implicate confrontation clause rights protected by the Sixth Amendment.