Opinions

Schweitzer v. State 2024 ND 151
Docket No.: 20240045
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A petitioner for postconviction relief must show how his counsel was ineffective through law, rules, or evidence, and cannot rely solely on conclusionary statements.

State v. Evitt 2024 ND 150
Docket No.: 20240077
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Hunting without a license and violating a governor's proclamation are crimes in North Dakota that the State has authority to prosecute and the district courts have jurisdiction to redress.

The sovereign citizen defense, under which adherents claim they can deny the courts' jurisdiction, is without merit.

Durr v. Volden, et al. 2024 ND 149
Docket No.: 20240029
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: In a trust relationship, a beneficiary has the burden of establishing their fiduciary made unaccounted-for withdrawals or made suspicious transactions that indicate undue influence. If the beneficiary proves this, a court must presume undue influence occurred for any benefit gained by the fiduciary. To avoid liability to the beneficiary for the transactions, the fiduciary must rebut the presumption to show no undue influence occurred.

Schoenberg v. Schoenberg 2024 ND 148
Docket No.: 20240044
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: Under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, a hearsay statement is admissible if the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts. The proponent failed to show that a letter containing hearsay statements from the children is more probative than affidavits or declarations from the children, or that the affidavits or declarations could not have been obtained through reasonable efforts.

If more than two years have passed since the court entered judgment establishing residential responsibility, a prima facie case consists of factual allegations sufficient to support a finding of a material change in circumstances and that a change is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. The changed circumstances must have adversely affected the child, or there must have been a general decline in the condition of the child. A significant other moving into the home and counseling are material changes in circumstances. The moving party failed to show the changed circumstances adversely affected the children or that there has been a general decline in the condition of the children.

Ritter v. Ritter 2024 ND 147
Docket No.: 20240041
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A trial court's property valuations and division of the parties' assets and debts, and refinancing of debts are findings of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.

A trial court may weigh spouses' competing testimony on the value of marital property. A trial court's valuation of marital property is not clearly erroneous if the findings are within the range of evidence provided.

Whether a trial court includes an indemnity provision in a divorce judgment is dependent upon the facts of the case, subject to the clearly erroneous standard.

When determining whether to award spousal support, the trial court must consider the Ruff-Fischer guidelines, the needs of the spouse seeking support, and the ability of the other spouse to pay.

Under the child support guidelines, a district court may average an obligor's income when calculating his or her income for child support purposes if the obligor has a fluctuating income. The guidelines specifically provide where gross income is subject to fluctuation, information reflecting and covering a period of time sufficient to reveal the likely extent of fluctuations must be provided.

State v. Juneau 2024 ND 146
Docket No.: 20230314
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A jury verdict finding a defendant guilty of robbery under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-01(2) while simultaneously determining he did not direct the force of a deadly weapon against the victim is legally inconsistent.

Interest of H.W. 2024 ND 145
Docket No.: 20240172
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for hospitalization and involuntary treatment with medication are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Warner v. Warner 2024 ND 144
Docket No.: 20240047
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. § 14-09.1-07, a family law mediation agreement is not binding upon the parties until approved by order of the court.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to set aside the judgment.

Wootan v. State 2024 ND 143
Docket No.: 20240025
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4).

State v. Ritter 2024 ND 142
Docket No.: 20230337
Filing Date: 7/18/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury conviction of sexual assault is reversed because the district court abused its discretion by admitting video of a forensic interview without weighing the probative value against the prejudicial effect.

A court is vested with discretion to decide whether a party has opened the door for the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence, but opening the door for the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence is not unlimited.

A court must first consider whether and to what extent the door has been opened regarding a particular topic. When the door has been opened, the court must also consider, under N.D.R.Ev. 403, whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury.