Opinions

Krueger v. Krueger 2011 ND 134
Docket No.: 20100264
Filing Date: 7/13/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: While the district court may not solely rely on a child's preferences regarding visitation, they may be a relevant consideration in the best interests of the child analysis.
In calculating a parent's child support obligation, the district court must clearly set forth how it arrived at a net income figure.

Gussiaas v. Neustel (cross-reference 20100086) 2011 ND 133
Docket No.: 20100386
Filing Date: 7/13/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

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

Smith v. Martinez 2011 ND 132
Docket No.: 20100309
Filing Date: 7/13/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A court must address the presumption against awarding primary residential responsibility to the perpetrator of domestic violence when there is evidence of domestic violence on the record.

State v. Aabrekke 2011 ND 131
Docket No.: 20100170
Filing Date: 7/13/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith, but may be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
In considering whether evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or bad acts is admissible, a court must apply a three-step analysis to determine: (1) the purpose for which the evidence is introduced; (2) that the evidence of the prior acts is substantially reliable or clear and convincing; and (3) in criminal cases that there is proof of the crime charged which permits the trier of fact to establish the defendant's guilt or innocence independently on the evidence presented without consideration of the evidence of the prior acts.
A court must give a cautionary instruction about the limited purpose for the use of prior bad acts evidence and must further determine whether the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any possible prejudicial effect of the evidence.

State v. Ennen 2011 ND 130
Docket No.: 20110003
Filing Date: 7/13/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Criminal judgment for surreptitious intrusion is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Interest of A.S. (CONFIDENTIAL) (CONSOL. W/ 20110117 - 20110120) 2011 ND 129
Docket No.: 20110116
Filing Date: 7/13/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author:

Highlight: Juvenile court judgment terminating parental rights is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Nemec v. Disciplinary Board 2011 ND 128
Docket No.: 20110136
Filing Date: 7/11/2011
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Lawyer reinstatement ordered.

State v. Blunt (Cross-reference w/20070247 & 20090110) 2011 ND 127
Docket No.: 20100308
Filing Date: 6/28/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The district court has discretion in applying a remedy when a violation of the discovery rules has been shown, and the court's decision will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abuses its discretion.
The court's decision on a discovery violation is reversible error only if the defendant has been denied a substantial right, and a substantial right has not been denied if the defendant is not significantly prejudiced.

Murchison v. State (Cross-reference 20030328) 2011 ND 126
Docket No.: 20100281
Filing Date: 6/27/2011
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A court may deny an application for post-conviction relief if the same or similar issues supporting the application were considered on a direct appeal from a criminal judgment and are barred by res judicata.
A defendant bears a heavy burden in proving he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and he may be denied relief where he failed to prove any prejudice resulted.

Day v. Haskell, et al. 2011 ND 125
Docket No.: 20110096
Filing Date: 6/24/2011
Case Type: Original Proceeding - Criminal - Writ of Supervision
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: When a criminal proceeding terminates after jeopardy attaches but before a verdict, double jeopardy does not prohibit the retrial of the accused if there was a manifest necessity for granting the mistrial.
There is no mechanical formula for deciding whether the termination of a criminal trial was supported by a manifest necessity, but the court should consider whether counsel were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the issue, whether alternatives to a mistrial were explored, and whether the court's decision was made after sufficient reflection.