Opinions

J.P. v. Stark Co. Social Services, et al. 2007 ND 140
Docket No.: 20070004
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: When a medicaid recipient receives out-of-state medical care without prior approval when there is no emergency, payment may be covered only if there was good cause for not first securing approval, the care and services were not available in state, and the care and services were medically necessary.

Graner v. Graner 2007 ND 139
Docket No.: 20060359
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: A district court's decision on a custodial parent's motion to relocate out-of-state will be reversed on appeal only if it is clearly erroneous.
Increased visitation expenses and distance are not a sufficient basis to deny a custodial parent's motion to relocate.
A court may not modify custody within two years of an order establishing custody, unless the court finds the modification is in the child's best interests and there is willful denial of visitation, the child's environment endangers the child's physical or emotional health or impairs the child's emotional development, or the noncustodial parent has had primary physical care of the child for longer than six months.

State v. Washington 2007 ND 138
Docket No.: 20060369
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Theft
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The probable cause standard is the same for both searches and arrests.
Once a vehicle has been validly stopped and its occupants lawfully detained, law enforcement officers may constitutionally order the driver and passengers out of the vehicle, even in situations not amounting to arrest.
Law enforcement officers have the right to use appropriate forcible means to effectuate an arrest.
An officer's subjective intent plays no role in ordinary probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis.

City of Fargo v. Malme, et al. 2007 ND 137
Docket No.: 20070043
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Cities are creatures of statute and possess only those powers and authorities granted by statute or necessarily implied from an express statutory grant.
Home rule charters allow cities to enact laws contrary to those of the state.
The supersession provision in N.D.C.C. 40-05.1-05 applies only to those powers enumerated in N.D.C.C. 40-05.1-06, and those powers must also be included in the home rule charter and be implemented by ordinance.
The rule of strict construction applies in defining municipal powers, and any doubt as to the existence or extent of municipal powers must be resolved against the municipality.

Stephenson v. Hoeven, et al. 2007 ND 136
Docket No.: 20070055
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Statutes are construed as a whole to give meaning, if possible, to every word, phrase, and sentence.
An administrative agency may adopt specific rules of procedure when necessary to comply with requirements outside the administrative agencies practice act or when necessary to comply with the requirements of federal law.

Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Assoc. Electric and Gas Ins. Services Ltd. 2007 ND 135
Docket No.: 20060303
Filing Date: 8/22/2007
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Insurance
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: Statutory interpretation is a question of law and fully reviewable on appeal.
Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears.
Statutes are construed as a whole and are harmonized to give meaning to related provisions.
If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the letter of the statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.
Under N.D.C.C. 26.1-41-17, which permits a basic no-fault insurer to seek equitable allocation and intercompany arbitration for no-fault benefits paid, "the motor vehicle liability insurer of a secured person" does not include an excess liability insurer.

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.