Opinions

Fremling v. Fremling 2009 ND 50
Docket No.: 20080197
Filing Date: 4/6/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Divorce judgment denying spousal support summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35(1)(a)(2).

Reciprocal Discipline of Thoms 2009 ND 49
Docket No.: 20090100
Filing Date: 4/6/2009
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Suspension of lawyer ordered.

Hoff v. Krebs, et al. 2009 ND 48
Docket No.: 20080249
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.)
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The implied co-insured rule does not apply when the initial claim arises from an injured third party.
The legal principle underlying the implied co-insured rule is the mutually insurable interest between a lessor and lessee.

State v. Bethke 2009 ND 47
Docket No.: 20080159
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The failure to file an information does not automatically require reversal if the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The failure to arraign a defendant does not warrant a reversal of a conviction if the issue is not raised before trial.
After an adverse decision at a preliminary hearing, the State may issue a new complaint if the State offers new evidence or has other good cause. An analysis from the State Laboratory constitutes new evidence.

Interest of J.K. (Confidential) 2009 ND 46
Docket No.: 20080180
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Findings of fact in juvenile matters will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly erroneous.
To establish theft of property under N.D.C.C. 12.1-23-02(1), the State must prove an individual (1) knowingly (2) takes or exercises unauthorized control over, or makes an unauthorized transfer of an interest in, the property of another (3) with intent to deprive the owner thereof.
Sufficient evidence existed to find juvenile committed theft because testimony of accomplice was corroborated by independent evidence connecting the juvenile with the commission of the theft.

State ex rel. K.B. v. Bauer 2009 ND 45
Docket No.: 20080092
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: In calculating income to be imputed to an unemployed obligor under the child support guidelines, a court may taken into consideration the fact that the obligor's past income circumstances had changed and were not a reliable indicator of his present or future earning capacity.
In calculating imputed income, the court has discretion to exclude an obligor's past earnings from a temporary college internship that has ended.
A child support obligation may be adjusted if the obligor's ability to provide support is reduced due to visitation-related travel expenses, but the expenses must be deducted from the obligor's net income, not directly from the child support obligation.

State v. Gibbs 2009 ND 44
Docket No.: 20070378
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A party must make a timely objection to an alleged error in the district court so the court may take appropriate action, if possible, to remedy any prejudice that may have resulted from the claimed error.
The prosecution may not comment on a defendant's failure to testify in a criminal case.
A jury is generally presumed to follow curative instructions.
The prosecution's statement during closing argument that there is no explanation for the prosecution's evidence does not constitute an improper comment on an accused's failure to testify where persons other than the accused could have offered contradictory evidence.

Interest of J.S.L. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2009 ND 43
Docket No.: 20080227
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: In determining whether hearsay evidence has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to qualify for the residual hearsay exception, the circumstances surrounding the statement are compared to the closest applicable hearsay exception.
Hearsay evidence is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts only if no other evidence, or very little other evidence, is available on the same point.
The introduction of allegedly inadmissible evidence in a non-jury case will be reversed only if all the competent evidence is insufficient to support the judgment or it affirmatively appears that the incompetent evidence induced the court to make an essential finding which would not otherwise have been made.

State v. Henes 2009 ND 42
Docket No.: 20080166
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Issues not raised to the district court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).
A district court enhances a sentence when it increases a defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum sentence to another offense level or sentencing range, or under a mandatory sentencing provision because of a subsequent offense.
A district court may consider an uncounseled conviction when exercising its sentencing discretion, but may not consider an uncounseled conviction when enhancing a term of imprisonment for a subsequent offense without evidence of a valid waiver of the right to counsel.

State v. Foreid 2009 ND 41
Docket No.: 20080128
Filing Date: 4/2/2009
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: An additional or different offense is not charged when an information is amended to fix an error in the classification of the charged offense and comply with statutory requirements.
For an instruction on a lesser included offense, there must be evidence on which the jury could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is not guilty of the greater offense and to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the lesser.