Opinions

State v. Taylor 2025 ND 91
Docket No.: 20240033
Filing Date: 5/8/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The omission of a single juror's response to a jury poll in a trial transcript does not establish a violation of the constitutional right to a unanimous verdict when the record sufficiently demonstrates the existence of other safeguards ensuring that the jury was properly impaneled and returned a unanimous verdict free of coercion or pressure.

The district court has wide discretion over the mode and order of presenting evidence, and over the use of extrinsic evidence to refresh memory or impeach a witness based on a prior inconsistent statement.

A sentencing decision will only be vacated if the district court acted outside the limits prescribed by statute or substantially relied on an impermissible factor in determining the severity of the sentence.

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 4, NECJD 2025 ND 90
Docket No.: 20250094
Filing Date: 4/30/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Grand Forks

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 1, SCJD 2025 ND 89
Docket No.: 20250083
Filing Date: 4/28/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Bismarck

Fowler v. Fowler, et al. 2025 ND 88
Docket No.: 20240308
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An attorney's fees sanction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 11 must comply with safeguards in the rule.

A court abuses its discretion by deeming an action frivolous if the claim is grounded in a good faith argument for an extension of the current interpretation of the law.

A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38 if the action is not frivolous.

Zittleman v. Bibler, et al. 2025 ND 87
Docket No.: 20240196
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party's due process rights were not violated by limiting the time of a hearing and preemptively allocating time to both parties.

A district court did not abuse its discretion when it limits the length of a hearing.

If a party desires more time for a hearing than a district court has scheduled, the party must object to the time limitations or move for a continuance.

A district court is not required to conduct a best interests analysis if it finds there has been no material change in circumstances.

A district court is not required to modify a residential responsibility judgment beyond the motion requested by a party.

State v. Brown 2025 ND 86
Docket No.: 20240225
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: This Court reviews an appeal from the dismissal of a criminal charge after a preliminary hearing under the abuse of discretion standard of review.

At a preliminary hearing the State must produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty of committing the crime.

Lowe v. WSI 2025 ND 85
Docket No.: 20250014
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court's judgment affirming an administrative law judge's decision is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

Skobodzinski v. NDDOT 2025 ND 84
Docket No.: 20240241
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A motor vehicle operator arrested for driving under the influence or being in actual physical control has a limited statutory right to consult with an attorney.

A person arrested for driving under the influence who asks to consult with an attorney before deciding to take a chemical test must be given a reasonable opportunity to do so if it does not materially interfere with the administration of the test.

Whether a person has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to speak with an attorney is determined by conducting an objective review of the totality of the circumstances.

The appropriate inquiry is whether the police afforded an arrestee a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel in a meaningful way.

State v. Burton 2025 ND 83
Docket No.: 20240286
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. The admission of out-of-court testimonial statements in criminal cases is precluded, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Statements are nontestimonial when the primary purpose is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency, and are considered testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

Rule 901, N.D.R.Ev., provides for methods of authentication of evidence. All authentication requires is that the party offering an item of evidence produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Rule 803(1), N.D.R.Ev., provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for a statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived the event or condition. Because N.D.R.Ev. 803(1) applied, a district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a 911 call recording into evidence.

Western Equipment Finance v. Sergei Tumas Productions, et al. 2025 ND 82
Docket No.: 20240309
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court judgment granting summary judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (6).