Opinions

State v. Causer 2004 ND 75
Docket No.: 20030124
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: The State is required to provide prior written notice of the alleged probation violations to a probationer.
The trial court is not required to inform a probationer of his statutory right to appeal from a probation revocation. A probationer has no constitutional right to appeal and there is no notification requirement in North Dakota's statutes or rules of procedure.
A probationer does not have a constitutional right to counsel on appeal from a probation revocation because there is no constitutional right to appeal. A trial court has no duty to inform a probationer of his state-granted right to counsel, nor does a trial court have a duty to appoint counsel for a probationer, absent a probationer's request.
A probationer's right against double jeopardy is not violated by a trial court's imposition of additional probation as part of resentencing after probation is revoked.
North Dakota's statutory scheme provides a probationer with actual notice that a probation violation could result in the imposition of a sentence more severe than his originally imposed sentence.

Danzl, et al. v. Heidinger, et al. 2004 ND 74
Docket No.: 20030239
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Contracts
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: Absent statutory or contractual authority, each party to a lawsuit bears the party's own attorney fees.

Rydberg, et al. v. Rydberg 2004 ND 73
Docket No.: 20030212
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: Issues on appeal are not restricted to those raised in a motion to alter or amend the judgment as long as the issues were raised at the district court.
A statute of limitations acts only to bar the bringing of the specified action and does not affect other remedies.
Paternity can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence or by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by another man.
Genetic tests are enough to rebut the presumption of paternity by clear and convincing evidence.

Roth v. Hoffer 2004 ND 72
Docket No.: 20030282
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

State v. Guscette 2004 ND 71
Docket No.: 20030177
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment if, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free to leave the area.
A seizure does not occur under the Fourth Amendment simply because a law enforcement officer asks a person questions, and as long as reasonable persons would feel free to disregard the officer and go about their business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is required.
Consent to a search is voluntary if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is the product of an essentially free choice and not the product of coercion.

State v. Lura (Consolidated w/20030186-20030194) 2004 ND 70
Docket No.: 20030185
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author:

Highlight: Drug convictions summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

Weaver v. State 2004 ND 69
Docket No.: 20030325
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Dismissal of second petition for post-conviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).

State v. Provost (cross-ref. w/20030227 & 20030229-20030231) 2004 ND 68
Docket No.: 20030228
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for simple assault on a peace officer is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).

State v. Stensaker 2004 ND 67
Docket No.: 20030204
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

Heinz v. Heinz 2004 ND 66
Docket No.: 20030301
Filing Date: 4/13/2004
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Child Support
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Amended divorce judgment summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).