Opinions

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).

State v. Lafromboise 2025 ND 81
Docket No.: 20240325
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: In a criminal case, the State may appeal from an order quashing an information or indictment or any count thereof. A dismissal for lack of probable cause, whether labeled an "order" or a "judgment," is appealable.

Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing an offense has been or is being committed. The State is not required to prove with absolute certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, but rather need only produce sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty.

To satisfy its probable cause burden, the State must have presented reasonable grounds to believe the defendant intended to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety, or acted with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, and threatened to commit a crime of violence or act dangerous to human life.

Dennis v. Dennis, et al. 2025 ND 80
Docket No.: 20240288
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A divorce judgment entered after a bench trial is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Matter of Emelia Hirsch Trust 2025 ND 79
Docket No.: 20240313
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order for contempt is affirmed.

State v. Ziegler 2025 ND 78
Docket No.: 20240269
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Mischief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury conviction of criminal mischief and stalking is affirmed.

Without foundation testimony from the insurer, an insurer's letters regarding valuation of property constitute inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove value of the property at issue.

Under the property owner rule, an owner may testify about the value of his property even if his opinion relies upon information from another.

A district court's evidentiary error is harmless if improperly admitted evidence amounted to cumulative evidence.

Holte, et al. v. Rigby, et al. 2025 ND 77
Docket No.: 20240244
Filing Date: 4/24/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court judgment entered after a bench trial is reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

If a trustee who is also one of the beneficiaries commits a breach of trust, the other beneficiaries are entitled to a charge upon his beneficial interest to secure their claims against him for the breach of trust. If a trustee-beneficiary has only a life interest in trust income, however, his beneficial interest terminates upon his death. Co-trustees may not offset against a life beneficiary's distribution to recoup losses resulting from the previous life beneficiary's breach of trust.

Because an equitable lien attaches to an asset as security, it is improper to attach an equitable lien to an asset in which a deceased debtor had only a life interest.

K.L.T., et al. v. NDDHHS 2025 ND 76
Docket No.: 20240299
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Certified Question of Law
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Court declined to answer the following certified question of law: "Is an unmarried couple able [to] adopt children under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-03(2)?"

Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize the Court to answer questions of law certified by a state district court when two conditions are met: (A) there is a question of law involved in the proceeding that is determinative of the proceeding; and (B) it appears to the district court that there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court.

When the district court has not halted proceedings, but rather has concluded them by dismissing the complaint, the certification procedure does not apply.

State v. Allman 2025 ND 75
Docket No.: 20240250
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. The harmless error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence and promotes respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.

Criminal defendants are presumed fit to stand trial. A defendant that lacks fitness to proceed cannot be tried, convicted, or sentenced.

Parties seeking a court order must make a motion. When a defendant is represented by counsel, the defendant generally has no authority to file pro se motions, and the court should not consider them.

A district court need give credit toward only one of the consecutive terms of imprisonment it imposes.

A speedy trial claim is evaluated under the four-part test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), considering the (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) proper assertion of the right, and (4) actual prejudice to the accused.