Opinions

Interest of M.M. (confidential) 2005 ND 219
Docket No.: 20050399
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A district court's finding that a person is mentally ill and requires treatment will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous.
A district court's finding that no less restrictive treatment programs other than hospitalization are appropriate, will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.
A district court's order for involuntary hospitalization must be based on clear and convincing evidence that there is a serious risk the individual will harm himself, others, or property if not hospitalized.
To authorize involuntary treatment with medication, the district court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the prescribed medication is clinically appropriate and necessary, that the patient was offered the treatment and refused it, that the prescribed medication is the least restrictive form necessary to meet the patient's needs, and that the benefits of the treatment outweigh known risks.

Curtis Construction Co., Inc. v. American Steel Span, Inc., et al. 2005 ND 218
Docket No.: 20050175
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A complete written contract must contain all the essential or material conditions and terms of the contract.
A complete contract may be contained in several writings or documents as long as it identifies: (1) the contracting parties; (2) the subject matter; (3) the consideration; and (4) the terms and conditions upon which the contract was entered.
The trier of fact decides the terms of an oral contract.
A contractor who has substantially performed may recover the contract price, less the expense of repairing the defects or omissions. Defects claimed must be clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin. The injured party must prove the cost of repair or the loss of value to its property.

Wright v. State 2005 ND 217
Docket No.: 20040304
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must prove counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the defendant was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance.
To demonstrate prejudice resulting from counsel's deficient performance, a defendant must establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Interest of A.B., et al. (CONFIDENTIAL) 2005 ND 216
Docket No.: 20050223
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Juvenile Law
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: An order granting leave to intervene in an action is not appealable.

Smith v. Hall 2005 ND 215
Docket No.: 20050270
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: The failure of the non-registering party to object to registration of a foreign child support order within the statutory time limit precludes the non-registering party from further contesting the registration on any ground that could be asserted at the time of registration.

State v. Hernandez 2005 ND 214
Docket No.: 20050047
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a witness is qualified as an expert and whether the witness's testimony will assist the trier of fact.
A party's failure to object to evidence admitted at trial generally waives the party's right to complain on appeal about the admission of the evidence.
A trial court has discretion to decide whether a party has opened the door for the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence.
A jury is generally presumed to follow a curative instruction, and a curative instruction to disregard certain evidence is generally sufficient to remove improper prejudice.
A trial court has broad discretion to balance the probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice.
To establish a due process violation for the destruction of evidence, a defendant must establish bad faith by the State, which means the evidence was deliberately destroyed by or at the direction of a State agent who intended to thwart and deprive the defense of the information.

Estate of Pladson v. Traill Co. Social Services, et al. 2005 ND 213
Docket No.: 20050154
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Administrative Proceeding
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: The requirement that an asset be "actually available" for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility must be interpreted reasonably, and the focus is on the applicant's actual and practical ability to make an asset available as a matter of fact, not legal fiction.

State v. Raulston (CONSOLIDATED W/20050160 & 20050161) 2005 ND 212
Docket No.: 20050159
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Assault
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A sentence is not illegal if, during the judge's oral pronouncement of the sentence, he states a hypothetical that could not come to fruition.
A defendant need not be informed of an 85 percent service requirement for a guilty plea to be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, as such a requirement is a parole condition rather than a mandatory minimum sentence.
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails when an attorney's performance--deficient or not--does not prejudice a defendant, due to the overwhelming evidence favoring the defendant's guilt.
The State may respond to an application for post-conviction relief within the time allowed by the court.
The district court's failure to make explicit findings and conclusions in its denial of post-conviction relief is harmless error based on the ample evidence within the record.

State v. Pailing (CON w/20050120, 20050306, 20050307, 20050308, & 20050309 2005 ND 211
Docket No.: 20050073
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An amended judgment, an order denying a motion to amend a criminal judgment, and an order denying a petition for post-conviction relief are summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

State v. Shermer 2005 ND 210
Docket No.: 20050066
Filing Date: 12/20/2005
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: An appeal from a criminal judgment and an order denying a motion to suppress is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).