Opinions

State v. Procive 2009 ND 151
Docket No.: 20080269
Filing Date: 8/18/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Under N.D.R.Ev. 401, 402, and 403, a district court has broad discretion in admitting or excluding evidence.
Under N.D.R.Ev. 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
The power to exclude evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 403 should be sparingly exercised, and prejudice due to the probative force of evidence is not unfair prejudice.
Under N.D.R.Ev. 801(d)(2), a statement made by one party that is offered against the party by the opponent is admissible, substantive, and non-hearsay evidence.

State v. Brown 2009 ND 150
Docket No.: 20080257
Filing Date: 8/18/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Violation of City Ordinance
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The legislature may delegate legislative powers, including the authority to create criminal penalties for violations of county ordinances, to a home rule county.
The provision in N.D.C.C. 11-09.1-05(5) limiting a home rule county's authority to regulate any industry or activity already regulated by state law applies only when there is an explicit state law or rule restraining the county's authority or when the industry or activity involved is already subject to substantial state control through broad, encompassing statutes or rules.
A county ordinance declaring that a dog that barks in an excessive or continuous manner is a public nuisance and that a person who owns or harbors the dog is guilty of an infraction does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
An ordinance declaring that a dog that barks in an excessive or continuous manner is a public nuisance is not unconstitutionally vague.
Under N.D. Const. art. VI, sec. 3, a procedural rule adopted by the Supreme Court must prevail in a conflict with a statutory procedural rule.
The signature of the prosecuting attorney on an information is not required to be sworn to upon oath.
A defendant charged with an infraction for violating a county ordinance, with a maximum penalty of a fifty-dollar fine with no possibility of imprisonment, does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial under N.D. Const. art. I, sec. 13.

Tarnavsky v. Rankin 2009 ND 149
Docket No.: 20090085
Filing Date: 8/18/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A party resisting a motion for summary judgment must present competent admissible evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact on the party's claims.
A party resisting a summary judgment motion must explain the connection between factual assertions and legal theories in the case and cannot leave to the court the chore of divining what facts are relevant or why facts are relevant let alone material to a claim for relief.

Abdullah v. State, et al. 2009 ND 148
Docket No.: 20080254
Filing Date: 7/29/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Other
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A public educational institution's decision whether to dismiss a student for academic reasons is entitled to deference.
Tort of unlawful interference with a business relationship requires an independently tortious or otherwise unlawful act of interference by the interferer.
A state employee may not be held liable for claims based upon a discretionary function, regardless of whether the discretion is abused, and a state employee cannot be held liable for a decision resulting from a quasi-judicial act.
A student does not have a substantive due process right to graduate from a public school.
A party resisting a motion for summary judgment must explain the connection between factual assertions and legal theories and cannot leave to the court the chore of divining what facts are relevant or why facts are relevant, let alone material, to a claim for relief.

State v. Sorenson (Consolidated w/20080134) 2009 ND 147
Docket No.: 20080132
Filing Date: 7/21/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Statements made during a jail phone call to friends and relatives are not testimonial statements, and Sixth Amendment confrontation rights do not apply.
Extreme emotional disturbance is a mitigating circumstance and not a defense to the crime of murder.
A warrantless trash search violates an individual's Fourth Amendment rights if there is a subjective expectation of privacy in the trash that society accepts as objectively reasonable.
An individual is denied due process when defects in procedure might lead to a denial of justice.
Insufficient evidence to support a conviction exists only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giving the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in favor of the verdict, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Beane (Consolidated w/20090012 - 20090015) 2009 ND 146
Docket No.: 20090011
Filing Date: 7/21/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: The Fourth Amendment is not implicated by police entry upon private land to knock on a citizen's door for legitimate police purposes unconnected with a search of the premises.
Placing a suspect in handcuffs before conducting a pat-down search for weapons is constitutionally permissible when the action is based on officer safety.
When an outside clothing pat-down search reveals the presence of an object of a size and density that reasonably suggests the object might be a weapon, the searching officer is entitled to continue the search to the inner garments where the object is located in order to determine whether the object is, in fact, a weapon.
Generally, when an object recovered from a suspect during a pat-down search is a closed container, the officer may not open the container to examine its contents unless the officer can point to specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the closed container poses a danger to the officer or others nearby.

Schaaf v. N.D. Department of Transportation 2009 ND 145
Docket No.: 20090025
Filing Date: 7/21/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: If a general provision in a statute is in conflict with a special provision in the same or in another statute, the two must be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both provisions, but if the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable, the special provision must be construed to control over the general provision.
Due process requires notice and an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the case.

State v. Blurton 2009 ND 144
Docket No.: 20090009
Filing Date: 7/21/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A guilty plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made to be valid.
Any error that does not affect a defendant's substantial rights is harmless and must be disregarded.
Generally, ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised in a post-conviction proceeding to allow the parties to fully develop a record of counsel's performance and its impact on the defendant.

State v. Demarais (Consolidated w/20080182) 2009 ND 143
Docket No.: 20080181
Filing Date: 7/21/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A jury may find a defendant guilty even though evidence exists which, if believed, could lead to a not guilty verdict.
In nearly all possession of drug paraphernalia cases, the State will be forced to prove by circumstantial evidence the intent to use the paraphernalia for the purpose of ingesting, preparing, or storing a controlled substance.
A verdict based upon circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts.

Shull v. Walcker, et al. 2009 ND 142
Docket No.: 20090021
Filing Date: 7/21/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Constitutional Law
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A motion for relief from judgment should not be used to relieve a party from free, calculated and deliberate choices he or she has made, and relief should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
The failure of a condition precedent is an affirmative defense which must be pled in the answer to a filed complaint.
The decision of a respondent to not answer a complaint, to not file a response to a motion for default judgment, and to disregard the court's recommendations that he seek counsel until after default judgment has been entered against him does not constitute exceptional circumstances to justify relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
Whether an earnest money clause in a purchase agreement limits a seller's remedies to the earnest money itself is a matter of contractual interpretation.