Opinions

Interest of Skorick 2024 ND 83
Docket No.: 20230330
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Civil Commitment of Sexually Dangerous Individual
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A district court must have sufficient factual findings to show a sexually dangerous individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Past conduct is relevant and may be considered with present conduct to determine if an individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior. Failure to attend treatment might demonstrate inability to control behavior just as violation of other institutional rules. The district court's findings are sufficient to show the individual continues to have an inability to control his behavior.

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230383-20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230382
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230384, & 20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230383
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382, 20230383, & 20230385) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230384
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Heintz (consolidated w/ 20230382-20230384) 2024 ND 82
Docket No.: 20230385
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Orders for revocation of probation are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Morales v. Weatherford U.S., et al. 2024 ND 81
Docket No.: 20230110
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Only those judgments and decrees which constitute a final determination of the parties' rights to an action and those orders enumerated in N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02 are appealable.

Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., applies to final judgments or orders. A final judgment is a decree, order, or judgment "from which an appeal lies." N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(a).

Rule 54(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., recognizes a district court may direct entry of a final judgment against only some of the parties to a litigation, but until final judgment is entered all orders are subject to revision.

Zander, et al. v. Morsette 2024 ND 80
Docket No.: 20230103
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: The district court controls the scope and substance of opening and closing arguments, and a district court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.

A party is not prejudiced by a counsel's improper arguments when the district court instructs the jury not to consider counsel's comments as evidence.

A court may grant a new trial on grounds the jury awarded excessive damages appearing to have been awarded under the influence of passion or prejudice. To justify the granting of a new trial, passion and prejudice usually connote anger, resentment, hate, and disregard of the rights of others.

When a jury awards excessive damages, under appropriate circumstances, the district court and this Court on appeal, may order a reduction of the verdict instead of a new trial or order that a new trial be had unless the prevailing party remits the excess damages.

State v. Pederson 2024 ND 79
Docket No.: 20230318
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: To succeed in a challenge under Brady, the defendant must demonstrate the evidence was favorable to the defendant or plainly exculpatory.

To preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appeal, the defendant must move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 unless the district court committed obvious error.

State v. Hartson 2024 ND 78
Docket No.: 20230243
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: Changing the culpability level of the crime charged is not a modification of a statute. Under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02(4), a lesser degree of culpability is satisfied if the proven degree of culpability is higher.

The district court's failure to submit statutory definition of that term was not obvious error affecting defendant's substantial rights.

It is not clearly established law in North Dakota that, where the State alleges multiple predicate felonies in a felony murder prosecution under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-16-01(1)(c), the district court must include an instruction that the jury must unanimously agree on the predicate felony to convict the defendant of murder.
Not including separate verdict forms for each predicate felony was not obvious error.

There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of murder.

Musland v. Musland 2024 ND 77
Docket No.: 20230345
Filing Date: 5/2/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: A marital distribution does not need to be equal to be equitable, and while assessing a property division, a district court may consider the importance of preserving the viability of a business operation like a family farm. Liquidation of an ongoing farming operation or business is ordinarily a last resort.

A district court property division granting one party a net estate of $3,224,357 while assigning them virtually no debt, and the other a net estate of $4,961,915 included all of the debt, almost no liquidity, and no retirement funds, was not clearly erroneous.

A district court does not need to consider potential tax implications of a property division when the record failed to support a conclusion that the sale of the property was imminent, failed to indicate the tax liability, or quantified a specific liability to the court.

A party is not entitled to an accrual of rent for the use of marital property during the pendency of divorce proceedings absent agreement or seeking district court intervention during the interim.
Language in a right to first refusal that does not clarify if the right is triggered by a response to "any" offer made to purchase property or if it is triggered by a party's "acceptance" of an offer is ambiguous.