Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In July 2021, the State charged Kamauri Kennedy with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Two weeks before the trial, Kennedy's counsel filed a motion to withdraw due to non-payment of legal fees, which the court denied. The trial was initially set for April 2024 but was continued to September 2024 due to late-discovered evidence. Kennedy's counsel filed another motion to withdraw, citing the winding down of his legal practice, which was also denied. Kennedy proceeded to trial in September 2024, where the court granted his motion for acquittal on the conspiracy charge, but the jury found him guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life without parole.The District Court of Ward County denied Kennedy's requests for new counsel and his counsel's motions to withdraw. Kennedy did not object to the introduction of prior bad acts evidence during the trial, which he later argued should have been excluded. The court found that Kennedy invited the error by introducing his criminal history during voir dire and through jury instructions. The court also noted that Kennedy's failure to object precluded the State from arguing the evidence's admissibility and the court from conducting the necessary analysis.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that Kennedy invited the error regarding the prior bad acts evidence and failed to demonstrate that the district court committed obvious error by not excluding the evidence. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kennedy's request for new counsel and his counsel's motions to withdraw. The court emphasized the importance of timely objections and the potential strategic reasons for not objecting to evidence during the trial. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Orion Tyler Berkley was convicted of child abuse, a class B felony, under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-22(1) and was ordered to register as an offender against children. The information alleged that Berkley, the father of the victim, inflicted or allowed bodily injury on his approximately two-year-old child. At sentencing, Berkley argued that registration as an offender against children was not mandatory and that the court should not order it. However, the district court believed it was required by law and ordered Berkley to register for a minimum of 15 years.The District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, presided over by Judge Benjamen J. Johnson, determined that registration was mandatory under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15. The court expressed difficulty in interpreting the statute but concluded that it required parents who commit offenses against children to register. Berkley appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred in its interpretation and that it abused its discretion by requiring him to register.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the statute ambiguous. The court examined the legislative history and the context of the statute, concluding that the district court misinterpreted the statute. The Supreme Court held that N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(d) allows the court to deviate from the registration requirement if the offender has not previously been convicted as a sexual offender or for a crime against a child and did not exhibit mental abnormality or predatory conduct, unless the offense is described in specific sections and the person is not the parent of the victim. The court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the registration requirement. View "State v. Berkley" on Justia Law

In February 2024, Nataneil Tekie Solomon was charged with gross sexual imposition and contributing to the deprivation or delinquency of a minor. At his arraignment in March 2024, Solomon pleaded not guilty and requested a speedy trial. The trial was scheduled for July 30, 2024, due to scheduling conflicts among the parties and the court. Solomon's counsel withdrew in May 2024, and new counsel was appointed. At the beginning of the trial, Solomon's counsel moved to dismiss the case for violation of his right to a speedy trial, which the district court denied, citing good cause for the delay.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, found good cause to extend the trial date beyond the 90-day statutory period due to scheduling conflicts and the agreement of Solomon's counsel to the July date. The court noted that neither party requested an earlier date when given the opportunity. The jury subsequently convicted Solomon on both counts.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the speedy trial determination de novo. The court considered the four Barker factors: length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant. The court found that the delay was 41 days, caused by scheduling conflicts, and that Solomon had asserted his right to a speedy trial. However, Solomon did not demonstrate specific prejudice resulting from the delay.The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not err in finding good cause for the delay and affirmed the denial of Solomon's motion to dismiss. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Solomon" on Justia Law

In 2021, a jury convicted an individual of gross sexual imposition involving his 13-year-old cousin, resulting in her pregnancy. DNA evidence established a high probability that he was the father. During the trial, the prosecutor asked an improper question regarding family support for the victim and defendant, which led to a defense objection and a curative instruction from the judge. The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied. On direct appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court found the improper question was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, as the jury was instructed to disregard it.Subsequently, the defendant filed a petition for postconviction relief in the District Court of Cass County, later amending it to argue that three recent North Dakota Supreme Court decisions involving the same prosecutor constituted newly discovered evidence of a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. The district court analyzed the claim under the standard for newly discovered evidence, finding that while the cited cases were decided after the defendant’s trial, they were not material to the issues at trial and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court also held that the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of prosecutorial misconduct had already been fully litigated and decided on direct appeal.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief. It held that the recent decisions did not constitute newly discovered evidence material to the trial’s issues and would not likely result in an acquittal. The court further concluded that the claim was barred by res judicata because it had been fully and finally determined on direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment denying postconviction relief. View "Bazile v. State" on Justia Law

In 2009, Ciro Gomez was charged and found guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. In September 2024, Gomez filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming a significant change in law and newly discovered evidence proving his innocence. The State moved for summary disposition, and the district court dismissed Gomez’s petition but later granted reconsideration. In January 2025, the court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely without an evidentiary hearing. Gomez appealed.The district court ruled that there had been no substantive change in the law applicable to Gomez’s case. Gomez had relied on State v. Noble, but the court found that Noble did not represent a significant change in the law. The court also determined that the alleged newly discovered evidence was not new, as it was known to Gomez at the time of his trial or discovered more than two years before filing the petition.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Gomez’s petition was untimely and did not meet the exceptions to the two-year filing rule under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-01(3). The court found that the evidence Gomez presented was not newly discovered and that any new information was known to him three years prior, exceeding the two-year limit for filing a postconviction relief application. Therefore, the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Gomez’s petition. View "Gomez v. State" on Justia Law

Hope Marie Landsberger was found guilty of providing false information to law enforcement. She reported that Nathan Vetter, with whom she shares custody of their infant child, returned the child with a mouth injury and refused to explain how it occurred. However, a recording of the exchange showed that Landsberger did not speak to Vetter during the exchange, contradicting her claims. Additionally, Vetter had previously explained a different incident involving their child, to which Landsberger had acknowledged. The officer noted that Landsberger's report misled law enforcement and that she had a history of filing unfounded police reports against Vetter.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, held a jury trial where Landsberger was found guilty of willfully giving false information to a law enforcement officer in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-11-03(1). Landsberger appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the essential elements of the offense with sufficient specificity.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the jury instructions provided by the district court were correct and adequately informed the jury of the applicable law. The instructions specified the date, location, and all elements of the offense as required by the statute. The court found that Landsberger's requested modifications to the jury instructions would have added elements not required by the statute and increased the State's burden of proof. The court concluded that the instructions, taken as a whole, were not erroneous and did not affect a substantial right of the defendant. Therefore, the conviction was upheld. View "State v. Landsberger" on Justia Law

Garron Gonzalez pled guilty in 2004 to two counts of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to five years on each count, concurrently, with most of the sentence suspended for probation. His probation was revoked in 2005, and he was resentenced to five years on each count, concurrently, with part of the sentence suspended. In 2011, his probation was revoked again, and he was resentenced to 20 years on each count, consecutively. In 2013, a postconviction relief application led to a new revocation hearing, and in 2014, he was resentenced to 20 years on each count, concurrently. In 2023, another postconviction relief application resulted in a resentencing to five years on each count, consecutively. This was reversed on appeal, and in February 2024, he was resentenced to five years on each count, concurrently, with credit for time served.Gonzalez filed a postconviction relief application in May 2024, arguing that his 2005 sentence was illegal and that his credit for time served was incorrect. The State opposed his application. Gonzalez waived the postconviction hearing, and after submitting a closing brief, the district court denied his application, concluding he failed to show his sentence was illegal or that his credit for time served was incorrect.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and considered the issue of mootness. The court noted that Gonzalez had completed his sentence under the 2024 judgment, which rendered his arguments about the 2005 sentence and credit for time served moot. The court concluded that any collateral consequences Gonzalez claimed were speculative and would not be remedied by a favorable ruling. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Gonzalez v. State" on Justia Law

In October 2023, a truck was stolen from a shop in Burleigh County, North Dakota. Surveillance video captured images of an individual at the shop, and shortly thereafter, the truck was driven away without permission. The next morning, the truck was found engulfed in flames with a rag in the fuel port. Jason Allen Leingang was observed wearing clothing identical to the individual in the surveillance video shortly after the truck was discovered.Leingang was charged with theft of property over $50,000, a class A felony. During a preliminary hearing in December 2023, a Bismarck Police Department officer testified about the original surveillance video, which was not preserved. Only two brief video clips were available, showing an individual walking through the parking lot and the truck leaving. In February 2024, Leingang filed a motion to suppress testimony related to the surveillance video, which the district court denied. During the May 2024 trial, Leingang objected again to the admission of the testimony, but the objection was overruled, and the video clips were admitted into evidence. The jury found Leingang guilty.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. Leingang argued that the district court erred in admitting the two video clips and the testimony about the entire surveillance video. The Supreme Court noted that Leingang did not object to the video clips at trial and did not argue obvious error on appeal. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony about the entire surveillance video under Rule 1004(a) of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence, as the original video was lost without bad faith by the state. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Leingang" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Daedyn Lewellyn was charged with terrorizing. His trial was initially scheduled for September 2023, but his court-appointed attorney retired, leading to multiple changes in representation. Lewellyn requested and was granted a continuance to review discovery, rescheduling the trial to January 2024. He later sought to change his plea but expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney, leading to further changes in representation. By August 2024, Lewellyn had gone through six court-appointed attorneys, with the last few withdrawing due to conflicts or deteriorated attorney-client relationships. On the eve of trial, Lewellyn dismissed his latest attorney and requested a continuance and new counsel, which the court denied.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cynthia M. Feland, handled the initial proceedings. The court granted several continuances due to changes in Lewellyn’s representation and scheduling conflicts. However, when Lewellyn dismissed his attorney the day before the trial, the court denied his request for another continuance and new counsel, citing the case's age and multiple previous continuances.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Lewellyn’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated. It determined that Lewellyn’s conduct amounted to a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel, as he was repeatedly informed that no further substitute counsel would be appointed. The court also found that Lewellyn’s waiver was knowing and intelligent, given his understanding of the risks of self-representation. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance request, considering the case's age and the numerous previous continuances. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Lewellyn" on Justia Law

Jesse Taylor, Jr. was charged with murder and aggravated assault after his case was transferred from juvenile court to district court in October 2022. In August 2023, a seven-day jury trial was held, and Taylor was found guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for the murder charge and a concurrent five-year sentence for the aggravated assault charge.Taylor appealed the judgment, raising three issues: the jury's verdict was not unanimous, the district court abused its discretion by denying the defense the ability to properly cross-examine a State's witness, and the court imposed an illegal sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court found that the jury's verdict was unanimous, as confirmed by the district court on multiple occasions, including a hearing held after the case was remanded. The court also determined that Taylor failed to preserve the issues regarding the evidentiary rulings for appeal, as he did not make an offer of proof or inform the district court of the desired actions or objections.Regarding the sentence, the court noted that Taylor was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, requiring a determination of his life expectancy. The district court used the age of 15 to determine Taylor's life expectancy, as there was no exact calculated life expectancy for the age of 18 in the mortality table. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the district court acted within the limits of the statute and did not rely on any impermissible factors in determining the sentence.The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, upholding Taylor's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law