Opinions

Judicial Vacancy in District Judgeship No. 1, Northeast Central Judicial Dt. 2003 ND 189
Docket No.: 20030326
Filing Date: 12/19/2003
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Rule - Rule
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Grand Forks.

Paul v. Workforce Safety and Insurance (cross-ref. w/20010290) 2003 ND 188
Docket No.: 20030199
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: The vocational rehabilitation statutes are designed to return an injured employee to substantial gainful employment as quickly and with as little retraining as possible.
Workforce Safety and Insurance's decision to terminate rehabilitation benefits must be based upon evidence that jobs exist which provide the applicant a reasonable opportunity for employment and not on a burden-shifting presumption that such jobs exist.

State v. Dodson 2003 ND 187
Docket No.: 20030042
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Drugs/Contraband
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: There must be a nexus between the place to be searched and the contraband sought to establish probable cause to issue a search warrant.
State courts apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in a manner that is consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent when evaluating whether evidence should be excluded due to a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, exclusion of evidence is not the proper remedy when an officer has acted upon objectively reasonable reliance that a warrant was properly issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.

Christianson v. Christianson 2003 ND 186
Docket No.: 20030123
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce - Property
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: No North Dakota statute or case law provides for the imputation of income in spousal support cases.
Equalization of income is not a goal or a measure of spousal support although it is a factor which may be considered.

Fish v. Dockter 2003 ND 185
Docket No.: 20030080
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Personal Injury
Author: Sandstrom, Dale

Highlight: To be defamatory, a statement must be false, but there is no liability for defamatory statements that are privileged.
There is a qualified privilege for communications made, without malice, to an interested person by one who is also interested so as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication innocent.
There is an absolute privilege for communications made incident to and during administrative proceedings.

State v. Backlund 2003 ND 184
Docket No.: 20030044
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Kapsner, Carol

Highlight: An adult is guilty of luring a minor by computer when (1) the adult knows the character and content of a communication that, in whole or in part, implicitly or explicitly discusses or depicts actual or simulated nudity, sexual acts, sexual contact, sadomasochistic abuse, or other sexual performances, (2) the adult willfully uses the computer communication system to initiate or engage in such communication with a person the adult believes to be a minor, and (3) by means of that communication, the adult willfully importunes, invites, or induces the person the adult believes to be a minor to engage in sexual acts or have sexual contact with the adult, or to engage in a sexual performance, obscene sexual performance, or sexual conduct for the adult's benefit, satisfaction, lust, passions, or sexual desires.
North Dakota has jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant who solicits a person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual acts from a computer in Minnesota, where the communication is received in North Dakota and the defendant travels to and is arrested in North Dakota.
North Dakota's luring-a-minor-by-computer law does not violate the Commerce Clause or the First Amendment.
The registration and notification provisions for sexual offenders do not violate procedural due process or double jeopardy.

Bay v. State 2003 ND 183
Docket No.: 20030145
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Maring, Mary

Highlight: Issues not raised to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
A nonbinding recommendation of sentence and a binding plea agreement under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(d) are significantly different.
The State fulfills its obligation in a nonbinding recommendation when it makes the recommendation, and the trial court may impose a harsher sentence without allowing the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea.
Defendants who voluntarily plead guilty waive the right to challenge nonjurisdictional defects occurring before entry of the guilty plea.

Interest of L.D. 2003 ND 182
Docket No.: 20030305
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Mental Health
Author: VandeWalle, Gerald

Highlight: A petition for involuntary treatment must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The trial court's determination of clear and convincing evidence that a person requires treatment is a finding of fact subject to a more probing, clearly erroneous standard of review.
If other evidence presented at a treatment hearing supports the underlying allegations of the petition, the petitioner does not have to be present to testify regarding all the allegations in the petition.

Crane Johnson Lumber Co., et al. v. City of Fargo 2003 ND 181
Docket No.: 20030146
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Real Property
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: Property lying outside the limits of a special improvement district created by a municipality's governing body is not subject to assessment by the special assessment commission.

State v. Knowels (cross-ref. w/20010147) 2003 ND 180
Docket No.: 20030093
Filing Date: 12/2/2003
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Neumann, William

Highlight: North Dakota law does not require a chemical test to convict a person of driving while under the influence of alcohol. A conviction may be sustained when evidence of defendant's intoxication is shown through witness testimony of defendant's intoxication, based on their observations of defendant.