Opinions

State v. Knight 2007 ND 155
Docket No.: 20070047
Filing Date: 10/16/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction of gross sexual imposition is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

State v. Johnson 2007 ND 154
Docket No.: 20060315
Filing Date: 10/16/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal conviction for failure to register as a sex offender is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

State v. Tassler 2007 ND 153
Docket No.: 20070078
Filing Date: 10/16/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author:

Highlight: Revocation of probation and sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

State v. Jager 2007 ND 152
Docket No.: 20070080
Filing Date: 10/16/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

Kram v. N.D. Department of Transportation 2007 ND 151
Docket No.: 20070102
Filing Date: 10/16/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Department of Transportation
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An order suspending commercial driving privileges for one year is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

State v. Grzeskowiak (Consolidated w/20060355) 2007 ND 150
Docket No.: 20060354
Filing Date: 10/16/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author:

Highlight: Orders deferring imposition of sentence for unlawful display of license plates and failure to transfer title of a vehicle are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (4).

Swenson v. Workforce Safety and Insurance Fund, et al. 2007 ND 149
Docket No.: 20070049
Filing Date: 9/5/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A claimant must prove by objective medical evidence that he suffered a compensable injury. Objective medical evidence may include a physician's medical opinion based on an examination, a patient's medical history, and the physician's education and experience.
Although a medical opinion supported by a treatise or other scientific authority may be more persuasive, physicians are not required to offer such support.

State v. Newman 2007 ND 148
Docket No.: 20060294
Filing Date: 9/5/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Homicide
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Persons accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury.
An appellate court will not set aside a verdict merely on a whimsy or fanciful notion that prejudicial misconduct occurred.
A defendant on a criminal charge has a constitutional right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of the trial, but the right is not absolute and can be waived by the defendant.

Lee v. Lee 2007 ND 147
Docket No.: 20060321
Filing Date: 8/30/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to order a party to pay spousal support beyond the party's original spousal support obligation, even when the original obligation has already ended, when reconsideration of an interrelated child support obligation could constitute a change in circumstances for purposes of the spousal support obligation.
A change in a child support obligation may constitute a material change in circumstances requiring reconsideration of an interrelated spousal support obligation.
Attorney's fees will not be awarded absent a showing of need or a showing that an appeal was frivolous.

State v. Tibor 2007 ND 146
Docket No.: 20060274
Filing Date: 8/30/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A court does not abuse its discretion in allowing expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome if it finds the testimony may assist the jury in understanding the evidence or determine a fact in issue.
Mere repetition of a child's out-of-court statements does not make them unduly prejudicial.
A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact-finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.