Opinions

State v. Gresz 2006 ND 135
Docket No.: 20050401
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Other
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: In the absence of physical action upon another person, the failure to include a self-defense jury instruction on a charge of disorderly conduct is not obvious error.

State v. Blue 2006 ND 134
Docket No.: 20050187
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the admission of out-of-court testimonial statements in criminal cases is precluded, unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the accused has had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Videotape recording of child's statement to forensic interviewer that included government involvement is a testimonial statement and if the child is available to testify, and the playing of the videotape without the opportunity to cross-examine the witness violates defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser.
The "reliability and trustworthiness" factors are still to be used for non-testimonial statements. But when testimonial statements are at issue, the constitutional right to confrontation cannot be superseded by reliability and trustworthiness.

Ulsaker v. White 2006 ND 133
Docket No.: 20050207
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: All assets regardless of source, whether separately obtained or inherited property, are to be considered part of the marital estate.
A district court misapplies the law when it determines property individually held is not included in the marital estate.
A property division need not be equal, but a substantial disparity must be explained.
Questions of property division and spousal support ordinarily must be examined and dealt with together.

Interest of N.B. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2006 ND 132
Docket No.: 20060031
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Juvenile Law
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Juvenile court order declaring child delinquent is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Jelleberg 2006 ND 131
Docket No.: 20050446
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
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)(2) and (7).

Interest of K.G. (Confidential) 2006 ND 130
Docket No.: 20060158
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Order for continuing mental health treatment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

State v. Rutherford 2006 ND 129
Docket No.: 20050374
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of burglary and assault is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

City of Fargo v. Curtis 2006 ND 128
Docket No.: 20060027
Filing Date: 6/29/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted the defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol and operating a motor vehicle without liability insurance is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Ballensky v. Flattum-Riemers, et al. 2006 ND 127
Docket No.: 20050277
Filing Date: 6/5/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Malpractice
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A defendant's demand to file a complaint is personal to the demanding defendant, and a plaintiff's failure to file the complaint after a demand does not void the service of the summons as to other defendants.
The amount of damages is a question of fact, and a victim need not establish economic damages before noneconomic damages can be awarded.
A physician is immune from liability for making a good faith report that the physician treated a person for an injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident if the physician has reasonable cause to suspect the injury was inflicted in violation of any criminal law, including driving under the influence of illegal drugs.

Interest of E.G., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) (Consolidated w/20050448) 2006 ND 126
Docket No.: 20050447
Filing Date: 6/5/2006
Case Type: Appeal - Juvenile - Termination of Parental Rights
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: To terminate parental rights, the petitioner must prove three elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the child is a deprived child, (2) the conditions and causes of the deprivation are likely to continue or will not be remedied, and (3) that by reason thereof the child is suffering or will probably suffer serious physical, mental, moral, or emotional harm.
To prove deprivation is likely to continue or will not be remedied, the petitioner cannot rely on past deprivation alone, but must provide prognostic evidence, demonstrating the deprivation will continue.