Opinions

State v. Whitman 2013 ND 183
Docket No.: 20120374
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Plain error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) may be noticed by the Court on its own motion.
N.D.R.App.P. 2 may be invoked to avoid manifest injustice and provide a defendant with the same relief granted his codefendant.
A defendant's use of the word lawyer during an interview is ambiguous when coupled with conduct evidencing the defendant wishes not to remain silent.

State v. Arot 2013 ND 182
Docket No.: 20120379
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: For the district court to have jurisdiction, the State must prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that a defendant is not a minor.
There is no irrebuttable presumption that a defendant's date of birth stated on official documents is his actual date of birth.

State v. Johnson 2013 ND 181
Docket No.: 20130144
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Criminal judgment for gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Beauclair v. Vanderveer 2013 ND 180
Docket No.: 20130115
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Divorce judgment distributing the parties' property under the terms of a premarital agreement is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Sweeney v. Kirby (cross-reference w/20120339) 2013 ND 179
Docket No.: 20130152
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Denial of a motion to modify primary residential responsibility is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Clements 2013 ND 178
Docket No.: 20130140
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A crimnal judgment for disorderly conduct is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

State v. Goulet 2013 ND 177
Docket No.: 20130148
Filing Date: 10/22/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment for aggravated assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Walstad v. Walstad (cross-reference 20120059) 2013 ND 176
Docket No.: 20130023
Filing Date: 10/11/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: An independent action in equity is available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.
To award attorney fees and costs under N.D.C.C. 14-05-23, the trial court must balance one party's needs against the other party's ability to pay and whether the action of either party unreasonably increased litigation costs, but in an independent action in equity for fraudulent concealment of marital assets, balancing one party's ability to pay with the other's needs is secondary to considering whether the actions of one party unreasonably increased litigation costs.
The secreting of assets in a divorce action is a clear and blatant form of economic misconduct, and it also implicates economic misconduct in the form of intentional non-disclosure of substantial marital assets.

Rolla v. Tank, et al. 2013 ND 175
Docket No.: 20130035
Filing Date: 10/2/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A caption on a deed is of no effect when the conveyance is clear.
Courts will not strain to find an ambiguity where none appears on the face of the instrument.

Holte v. Holte 2013 ND 174
Docket No.: 20120312
Filing Date: 9/30/2013
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: When a substantial marital debt has been excluded from the marital estate, it is not possible to determine whether the district court would have reached the same result in allocating the assets and debts had it included the debt.
Trusts are generally included as marital property subject to equitable distribution by the district court and may be divided at the time of divorce either by awarding the present value of the benefits or, when the present valuation is too speculative, by awarding a percentage of future payments.
Marital property is ordinarily valued as of the date of trial.