Opinions

State v. Henderson 2024 ND 42
Docket No.: 20230253
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: A criminal judgment is reversed because the district court abused its discretion by admitting several trial exhibits that were not properly authenticated under N.D.R.Ev. 901 and are inadmissible hearsay that lacked sufficient foundation as records of regularly conducted activity under N.D.R.Ev. 803(6).

State v. Henderson 2024 ND 42
Docket No.: 20230253
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Interest of R.K. 2024 ND 41
Docket No.: 20240062
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A district court’s order continuing an individual’s treatment at the North Dakota State Hospital is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Interest of R.K. 2024 ND 41
Docket No.: 20240062
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co. 2024 ND 40
Docket No.: 20230280
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

Highlight: We answer two certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota regarding North Dakota’s natural accumulation rule, which precludes liability for injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice. The questions ask whether the accumulation rule extends to an oil well site in a rural area, and, if so, does it still apply if it conceals a condition substantially more dangerous than one normally associated with ice and snow. 

The natural accumulation rule relates to the threshold question whether a duty exists. The underlying rationale for the natural accumulation rule is reasonableness.

The natural accumulation rule is generally applicable under North Dakota law with some exceptions.

We answer the first question, “yes.” The natural accumulation rule applies to an oil well site in a rural area. We answer the second question, “no.” The concealment aspect of snow and ice is outside the scope of our natural accumulation rule.

Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co. 2024 ND 40
Docket No.: 20230280
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Certified Question - Civil - Civil
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

State v. Wiese 2024 ND 39
Docket No.: 20230220
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: Obvious error analysis does not apply to errors waived through the doctrine of invited error, unless a constitutional error is structural.

Possession may be actual or constructive, and constructive possession is proven where evidence establishes that the accused had the power and capability to exercise dominion and control over the material.

State v. Wiese 2024 ND 39
Docket No.: 20230220
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Archambault v. State 2024 ND 38
Docket No.: 20230336
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

Highlight: To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Strickland test, the applicant must show: (1) counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test. If a court can resolve the case by addressing only one prong, it is encouraged to do so.

Based on the state of the law, trial counsel’s failure to object to the jury using the laptop in the jury room, a laptop that only permitted the video to be heard and viewed, did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness.

Weber v. NDDOT 2024 ND 37
Docket No.: 20230354
Filing Date: 3/7/2024
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A driver arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol was provided a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel when he was permitted to use his cellphone to call a third party to help contact an attorney and made no additional requests or attempts to contact counsel.