Opinions

State v. Kennedy 2025 ND 130
Docket No.: 20240346
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: A party can invite error during voir dire.

It is the responsibility of the parties, not the district court, to object to evidence a party believes is inadmissible.

A party may intentionally not object to potentially inadmissible evidence for numerous strategic reasons. The court ruling on the admissibility of evidence when not invited to by a party can disrupt a party's trial presentation and sabotage a party's trial strategy.

Attorneys have an obligation to ensure that the arguments they present are factually and legally supported.

Whether to substitute appointed counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.

Carvalho v. Carvalho, et al. 2025 ND 129
Docket No.: 20250086
Filing Date: 7/17/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court must perform an adequate analysis for an appellate court to determine the basis for its decision.

Whether a party has established a prima facie case for a change of primary residential responsibility is a question of law which we review de novo.

Bazile v. State 2025 ND 128
Docket No.: 20250015
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court order denying an amended application for postconviction relief is affirmed.

An application for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1)(e) is reviewed as a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 33.

Section § 29-32.1-01 ("Remedy - To whom available - Conditions) limits the availability of postconviction relief to those grounds listed under subsection 1. An applicant for postconviction relief under N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1 must base his application on the grounds provided under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(1).

Res judicata bars relitigation of the same claim or claims that were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding.

Interest of B.F. 2025 ND 127
Docket No.: 20250159
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

A factfinder may rely in its findings on an affidavit if the affidavit is properly offered and received into the evidentiary record.

Termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3 are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure and, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.

N.D.R.Juv.P. 16 applies to motions to vacate in termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3.

Rule 16, N.D.R.Juv.P., provides for both mandatory and discretionary modification of orders. A court's exercise of its discretion under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

A court's discretion to modify orders under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is narrow when the order at issue is an order terminating parental rights. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b)(2), a court may only vacate an order terminating parental rights on motion of the parent if the child is not placed for adoption and the person having custody of the child consents in writing to the vacation of the decree.

When a parent fails to appear at a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3, a juvenile court does not violate the parent's constitutional due process rights if it exercises its discretion to proceed under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10.

Interest of I.F. 2025 ND 127
Docket No.: 20250160
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An appeal from a juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

A factfinder may rely in its findings on an affidavit if the affidavit is properly offered and received into the evidentiary record.

Termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3 are governed by the North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure and, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure.

N.D.R.Juv.P. 16 applies to motions to vacate in termination of parental rights proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3.

Rule 16, N.D.R.Juv.P., provides for both mandatory and discretionary modification of orders. A court's exercise of its discretion under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.

A court's discretion to modify orders under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b) is narrow when the order at issue is an order terminating parental rights. Under N.D.R.Juv.P. 16(b)(2), a court may only vacate an order terminating parental rights on motion of the parent if the child is not placed for adoption and the person having custody of the child consents in writing to the vacation of the decree.

When a parent fails to appear at a proceeding under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20.3, a juvenile court does not violate the parent's constitutional due process rights if it exercises its discretion to proceed under N.D.R.Juv.P. 10.

Equinor Energy v. NDIC, et al. 2025 ND 126
Docket No.: 20240357
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Industrial Commission
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: An order of the North Dakota Industrial Commission is vacated for lack of jurisdiction.

Adjudicatory jurisdiction does not necessarily inhere in an agency's regulatory jurisdiction. A public administrative body has such adjudicatory jurisdiction as is conferred on it by statute. The jurisdiction of an administrative agency is dependent upon the terms of the statute.

Section 38-08-04, N.D.C.C., grants the Commission broad regulatory jurisdiction over disposal of saltwater, but it does not expressly or by necessary implication grant jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under contracts relating to saltwater disposal.

The "costs" of "operation of a well on a spacing unit" under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2) include production costs but exclude post-production costs. The Commission's jurisdiction to determine proper costs under § 38-08-08(2) thus extends only to production costs and excludes post-production costs.

Salt-water gathering is a post-production cost outside of the Commission's jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2), and the Commission thus lacks jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 38-08-08(2) to adjudicate disputes between private parties over saltwater gathering costs.

Gomez v. State 2025 ND 125
Docket No.: 20250058
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An application for post-conviction relief must be filed within two years of the date the conviction becomes final.

An application for postconviction relief may be summarily dismissed if commenced outside the two-year period for filing and does not meet an exception under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3).

Matter of Quilt 2025 ND 124
Docket No.: 20240360
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court's order granting a continuance to allow a witness to appear by reliable electronic means was affirmed.

Interest of Wedmore 2025 ND 123
Docket No.: 20240303
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A district court's order granting a motion for a witness to appear by electronic means is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

A district court's order finding an individual qualifies as a sexually dangerous individual must contain findings that the individual has a serious difficulty controlling their behavior.

Fagnon v. Ngaima 2025 ND 122
Docket No.: 20250074
Filing Date: 7/3/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Protection/Restraining Order
Author: McEvers, Lisa K. Fair

Highlight: A district court may grant a disorderly conduct restraining order when a petitioner shows there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct means intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another person.

A district court's findings of fact must be sufficient to enable an appellate court to understand the factual determinations made by the district court and the basis for its conclusions of law. The district court's findings are adequate if the appellate court can discern from them the factual basis for the district court's decision.

There must be logical limits on the time and distance factors when a restraining order is at issue.