Opinions

Clemenson v. Clemenson, et al. 2025 ND 195
Docket No.: 20250097
Filing Date: 11/20/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: The domestic violence factor in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2(1)(j) requires the district court find credible evidence that domestic violence occurred. The court next must find an instance of (1) serious bodily injury, or (2) use of a dangerous weapon, or (3) a pattern of domestic violence within a reasonable time proximate to the proceeding.

We do not reweigh the findings of a district court under the clearly erroneous standard.

State v. Gores 2025 ND 194
Docket No.: 20250055
Filing Date: 11/20/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: A criminal judgment entered after a bench trial is affirmed because sufficient evidence supports the convictions.

Unlike in a jury trial, a defendant does not need to move for judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 at a bench trial to preserve the issue of sufficiency-of-the-evidence for appeal.

The process of "making an arrest" or "effecting an arrest" contains many steps, which, if uninterrupted, result in an arrest. "Preventing arrest" is the charged crime for preventing an officer from "effecting an arrest" at any point during the arrest process.

During the process of "making an arrest" law enforcement is required to inform the individual of the cause of arrest unless the officer does not have an opportunity to do so. See N.D.C.C. § 29-06-17.

Boyda v. Boyda, et al. 2025 ND 193
Docket No.: 20250054
Filing Date: 11/20/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Parenting Responsibility
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

Highlight: An existing parenting plan that creates conflict between a parent and the children can be a material change of circumstances for modification of the plan.

A district court has broad discretion in determining which party bears the costs for an examination under N.D.R.Civ.P. 35 and for therapy.

A parenting plan that gives a third party the power to unilaterally determine progress and set requirements without criteria from the district court is an improper delegation of the court's authority.

The decision whether to hold a person in contempt is addressed to a district court's discretion, and will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.

Vacancy in Judgeship No. 6, ECJD 2025 ND 192
Docket No.: 20250363
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Judicial Administration - Vacancy - Vacancy
Author: Per Curiam

Highlight: Judgeship retained at Fargo

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250152
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250153
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250154
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Cotton 2025 ND 191
Docket No.: 20250155
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Misdemeanor
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: District courts have discretion to issue consecutive terms of imprisonment for felonies, but N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-11 limits the court's authority for misdemeanors. When sentenced only for misdemeanors, a defendant may not be consecutively sentenced to more than one year, unless the defendant is being sentenced for two or more class A misdemeanors and each was committed as part of a different course of conduct or each involved a substantially different criminal objective. Crimes are not necessarily part of the same course of conduct simply because they were committed close in time or by similar means.

State v. Wallette 2025 ND 190
Docket No.: 20250073
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 11 of the North Dakota Constitution respectively prohibit infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" and "cruel or unusual punishments." A punishment in a non-capital case that is grossly disproportionate to the offense is cruel and unusual. The disproportionality principle is narrow. It forbids only extreme sentences.

Generally, unless there is a statute to the contrary, it is within the trial court's sound discretion whether a sentence should run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.

The Court will review a claim that a sentence is illegal even when it was not raised below, but a significant distinction exists between claims of error regarding a sentence imposed in a procedurally or factually flawed manner, which can be waived, from an unauthorized sentence that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstances in the particular case.

Smith v. State 2025 ND 189
Docket No.: 20250127
Filing Date: 11/5/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Post-Conviction Relief
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

Highlight: An attorney's representation of a criminal defendant fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness when the attorney failed to exclude certain evidence
under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b) prior to trial, failed to object to the evidence at trial, failed
to request a limiting or curative instruction after the evidence was introduced,
and failed to develop an obvious error argument regarding the evidence on
direct appeal.

The district court erred in concluding a criminal defendant was prejudiced by
counsel's representation without first assessing counsel's errors within the
context of the remaining evidence properly presented and the overall conduct of
the trial to determine whether there was a reasonable probability that the
outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

The case is remanded to supplement the record with additional evidence from
the original record, if possible, and to permit the district court to address all of
the grounds for relief raised by the applicant in his postconviction proceeding.