Opinions

Burns v. Burns 2007 ND 134
Docket No.: 20060218
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A continuance is the proper remedy for a party claiming surprise, and a judgment will not ordinarily be reversed on appeal for surprise when no request is made for a continuance at the time and there is no showing of inability to meet the situation.
If evidence of domestic violence does not rise to the level to trigger the presumption against an award of custody, the court may still consider the evidence as one of the best interest factors.
A district court's concerns about maintaining the custodial relationship that existed prior to the divorce and allowing the child to attend the same school and live in the same house are all valid considerations under N.D.C.C. 14-09-06.2(1)(d).
Being a child's primary caretaker does not guaranty a custody award in a divorce action.

State v. Kautzman 2007 ND 133
Docket No.: 20060329
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A mistrial must be declared before the trial is over and before the jury has been discharged. When defense counsel moves for a mistrial, an instruction to the jury must be requested to properly preserve the question for appellate review.
A judgment of acquittal may be entered only if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
For an offense to be a lesser included offense, it must be impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser.
If counsel does not object to the trial court's instructions, the issue is not adequately preserved and inquiry on appeal is limited to whether the court's failure to instruct the jury was obvious error affecting substantial rights.
A party may not challenge as error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party.
A trial court has broad discretion when deciding evidentiary matters, and its admission or exclusion of evidence will not be overturned on appeal unless that discretion has been abused.

State v. Muhle (Cross-reference w/20060340) 2007 ND 132
Docket No.: 20060328
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A district court's evidentiary ruling is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
Out-of-court testimonial statements may not be admitted into evidence when the child is unavailable to testify unless the defendant has had an opportunity to cross-examine the child. If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Rule 16 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure requires only "statements" be disclosed by the prosecution. "Statement" is defined technically and emphasizes formal, written, or recorded declarations.
To establish a violation under Brady v. Maryland, the defendant must prove: (1) the government possessed evidence favorable to the defendant; (2) the defendant did not possess the evidence and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence; (3) the prosecution suppressed the evidence; and (4) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different if the evidence had been disclosed.
A conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence will be reversed only if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Muhle (Cross-reference w/20060328) 2007 ND 131
Docket No.: 20060340
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A court's evaluation of the trustworthiness of a child's out-of-court statement about alleged sexual abuse, may include these non-exclusive factors: (1) the spontaneity and consistent repetition of the statements, (2) the mental state of the declarant, (3) the use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and (4) a lack of motive to fabricate.
If a defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine a witness at trial, the admission of testimonial statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause.
The proper remedy for unfair surprise is a continuance, but one must be requested.
The term "statement," as used in N.D.R.Crim.P. 16(f), means a written or otherwise recorded statement made by the witness, codefendant, or other person.

Estate of Allmaras 2007 ND 130
Docket No.: 20060380
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Probate, Wills, Trusts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A conservator has discretionary authority to manage the protected person's estate, subject to the conservator's fiduciary responsibilities and taking into account any known estate plan of the protected person.
A payable-on-death beneficiary has no present interest in the account, no right to prevent the depositor from removing the account funds and effectively destroying the beneficiary designation, and no right to preclude the depositor from changing or removing the beneficiaries on the account.

Disciplinary Board v. Light 2007 ND 129
Docket No.: 20070226
Filing Date: 8/16/2007
Case Type: Discipline - Attorney - Original Proceeding
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Interim suspension of lawyer ordered.

Capital Electric Coop., Inc. v. City of Bismarck, et al. (cons w/20060270) 2007 ND 128
Docket No.: 20060199
Filing Date: 7/27/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: If a municipality has enacted an ordinance that requires electric suppliers to have a franchise, a rural electric cooperative must have a franchise to provide electric service within the municipality.
A franchise is a contract and is interpreted under rules for interpretation of a contract. Contracts are construed to give effect to the parties' mutual intention at the time of contracting, and the parties' practical interpretation of a franchise is entitled to some influence.

Home of Economy v. Burlington Northern 2007 ND 127
Docket No.: 20070002
Filing Date: 7/27/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: North Dakota law does not preclude an action for a prescriptive easement for a public road across a railroad line.
A party asserting the existence of a public road by prescription has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence the general, continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse use of a road by the public under a claim of right for 20 years.
Adverse and hostile use is ordinarily a question of fact.

State v. Vantreece 2007 ND 126
Docket No.: 20060139
Filing Date: 7/25/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Under N.D.C.C. 12.1-20-03(1)(a), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant, by force or threat of death or serious harm, compelled the victim to submit to a sexual act.
In a criminal case charging the defendant with having sex by force, the complainant's mental capacity is relevant to the question of the extent of force required to compel the victim to submit.

State v. Gaede 2007 ND 125
Docket No.: 20060188
Filing Date: 7/25/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A defendant may not be convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice unless the accomplice's testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.
Testimony or argument about a defendant's post-arrest silence may constitute an improper comment about the defendant's invocation of the right to remain silent.
Evidence of prior bad acts or convictions is not admissible to prove a defendant's character in order to show action in conformity therewith, but may be admissible for other purposes, such as motive, intent, preparation, or plan.
Prior-bad-act evidence may be admissible to provide a more complete story of a crime by putting the crime in context of happenings near in time and place.