Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Brandon Schweitzer was charged with one count of reckless endangerment, four counts of fleeing a police officer, and one count of driving under suspension after a series of police pursuits on August 15-16, 2022. Schweitzer pleaded guilty to the charges during a change of plea hearing where the court confirmed he understood the charges and the potential penalties. Schweitzer later filed a petition for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not advising him of a potential double jeopardy defense and failing to file a motion to dismiss some of the charges.The District Court of Burleigh County denied Schweitzer's petition and amended petition for postconviction relief. The court found that Schweitzer and his attorney had discussed the case, and the attorney had advised him appropriately. The court also found that Schweitzer's claims lacked credible evidence and legal support. The court concluded that Schweitzer's attorney's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that Schweitzer failed to show his attorney was ineffective for not raising a double jeopardy defense.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that Schweitzer did not meet the first prong of the Strickland test, which requires showing that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court found that Schweitzer failed to provide substantive law supporting his claim that the four counts of fleeing police violated the double jeopardy clause. The court concluded that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that Schweitzer did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Schweitzer v. State" on Justia Law

Cody Wayne Ritter was convicted of sexual assault after his fifteen-year-old stepdaughter alleged inappropriate contact. The minor underwent a forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center, which was recorded and marked as evidence. During the trial, the defense and prosecution discussed the contents of the video, which included allegations of misconduct in Texas. The district court admitted the video into evidence over the defense's objections, which argued that its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value.The District Court of Ransom County admitted the video, reasoning that the defense had opened the door to its contents by eliciting testimony about the Texas incident. The court allowed the video to be shown to the jury during deliberations, despite the defense's objections under N.D.R.Ev. 403. The jury subsequently convicted Ritter of sexual assault.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the video without properly weighing its prejudicial impact against its probative value. The Supreme Court noted that the district court had not viewed the video in its entirety and failed to assess the specific instances of alleged misconduct. The court emphasized that the doctrine of "opening the door" requires a careful, topic-by-topic assessment and that the district court did not adequately consider the potential for undue prejudice and confusion. Consequently, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment against Ritter. View "State v. Ritter" on Justia Law

Jarrod Adams was charged with multiple offenses, including attempted gross sexual imposition and kidnapping. The charges stemmed from an incident on May 1, 2022, in Grand Forks County, North Dakota. The information used both "intentional" and "willful" to describe the culpability required for the attempted gross sexual imposition charge. The jury instructions defined the offense as requiring intentional conduct. Adams was also charged with kidnapping, with the jury instructed that the offense included abducting another person with the intent to terrorize or commit a felony.The District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, presided over the trial. Adams did not object to the jury instructions at trial, and the jury found him guilty of both attempted gross sexual imposition and kidnapping. Adams appealed, arguing that the jury instructions were inconsistent and that the evidence was insufficient to support the kidnapping conviction as a class A felony.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions properly informed the jury of the level of culpability necessary to convict Adams of attempted gross sexual imposition, consistent with the precedent set in State v. Pendleton. The court also found that Adams had invited any error in the kidnapping instructions by requesting them himself, thus waiving his right to challenge them on appeal. The court concluded that the subsections of the kidnapping statute are alternative means of committing the offense, not separate crimes, and therefore the jury's verdict was unanimous.However, the court agreed with Adams that he was improperly sentenced for a class A felony kidnapping when the facts only supported a class B felony. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing on the kidnapping charge to impose a sentence consistent with the facts proven. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

In December 2021, Jordan Juneau was charged with attempted murder with a dangerous weapon, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and burglary. The charges stemmed from an incident where Juneau allegedly committed theft and used a dangerous weapon. Following a five-day jury trial, Juneau was found guilty of burglary and robbery but acquitted of attempted murder. The jury, however, indicated on a special verdict form that Juneau did not use a dangerous weapon in the commission of the robbery.The District Court of Wells County, Southeast Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cherie L. Clark, entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict. Juneau was sentenced to 30 years with 10 years suspended for the robbery conviction. Juneau appealed, arguing that the jury's findings were inconsistent because the robbery conviction required the use of a dangerous weapon, which the jury found he did not use.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court noted that the jury's findings on the special verdict form negated an essential element of the robbery charge, creating an irreconcilable inconsistency. The court distinguished this case from others where verdicts on different counts were inconsistent, emphasizing that the inconsistency here was within the same count. The court found that the jury's determination that Juneau did not use a dangerous weapon contradicted the requirement for a robbery conviction under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-22-01(2).The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the burglary conviction and the acquittal for attempted murder. However, it reversed the robbery conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings on that charge, due to the inconsistency in the jury's findings. View "State v. Juneau" on Justia Law

Mark Andrew Belyeu was charged with five offenses related to sexual exploitation of a minor. He initially pled guilty to two of the charges, but later withdrew his pleas. After a change of counsel, Belyeu again pled guilty to the same two charges. The court found his guilty pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given. Belyeu was subsequently sentenced and judgment was entered.Belyeu filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given due to ineffective assistance of his trial counsel and the existence of newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed Belyeu’s claims of actual innocence and his sentence not being authorized by law, and limited the evidentiary hearing to the remaining two claims. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Belyeu’s petition for postconviction relief.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Belyeu failed to show that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court also found that Belyeu failed to show that but for his counsel's alleged errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Furthermore, the court found that Belyeu did not meet his burden to show newly discovered evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that Belyeu could not show a manifest injustice based on the advice of his counsel or the existence of newly discovered evidence. View "Belyeu v. State" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Bradley Vervalen, who was charged with burglary and attempted murder. The charges stemmed from an incident where Vervalen unlawfully entered the home of his children's mother and attacked her boyfriend, stabbing him multiple times with a knife. A jury found Vervalen guilty of both charges, and the court subsequently sentenced him.Vervalen appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in two ways. First, he claimed the court failed to instruct the jury on his voluntary intoxication. However, he conceded that he did not object to the proposed instructions or request an intoxication instruction be given to the jury. Second, he argued that the court provided attempted murder instructions that deviated from the murder statute, thereby creating a nonexistent crime.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The court found that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, and while Vervalen was allowed to present evidence of his intoxication, he did not request an instruction on voluntary intoxication. The court concluded that Vervalen was not prejudiced by the lack of an intoxication instruction as he was not prevented from presenting evidence of his intoxication or arguing that he did not form the requisite culpability due to being intoxicated.Regarding the attempted murder instructions, the court found that Vervalen failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. His counsel had objected to the proposed final jury instructions because they contained a "knowing" culpability—in addition to the "intentional" culpability—citing a previous case, Pemberton. The district court agreed to omit the "knowingly" language from the jury instructions. When asked if he had any other objections to these instructions, Vervalen's counsel stated, "No, Your Honor. That was it." The court concluded that Vervalen had waived this issue.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the criminal judgment against Vervalen. View "State v. Vervalen" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Richard Dean Anderson, Jr., who was stopped by law enforcement for a broken tail light. During the stop, Anderson was questioned about his activities, to which he responded that he had been grocery shopping in West Fargo and was heading home to Hunter, a location more than 35 miles away. The officers found his story suspicious due to the late hour and the lack of visible groceries in the car. They conducted a background check, revealing Anderson's prior drug convictions. Based on this information, the officers called a K-9 unit, which detected drugs in Anderson's vehicle. Anderson was subsequently charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.Prior to his trial, Anderson moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, arguing that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a drug investigation. The district court denied his motion, and Anderson entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the officers did not expand the scope of the traffic stop until after they discovered Anderson's criminal history. Until that point, the officers were diligently pursuing the mission of the traffic stop. After learning of the drug convictions, the officers shifted their focus to a drug investigation. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and start a new investigation based on the totality of the circumstances, including the late hour, Anderson's vague explanation for his travel, the lack of visible groceries in the car, Anderson's change in demeanor when questioned, and his prior drug convictions. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

James Massey was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony, and child abuse, a class C felony. The charges stemmed from an incident involving a minor, identified as T.T. During the trial, the State presented testimonies from T.T., law enforcement, medical staff, and a psychologist. Massey, in his defense, testified on his own behalf. The jury found Massey guilty of both charges.The case was first heard in the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District. At the close of the State's case, Massey moved for a judgment of acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29, which the court denied. The jury found Massey guilty of both charges, and he subsequently appealed the convictions.The case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court of North Dakota. Massey argued that the jury instruction for gross sexual imposition was improper and that the State's closing arguments constituted prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found no error in the use of "willfully" as the required mens rea in the jury instructions. Although the court acknowledged that the State made an improper "golden rule" argument during closing arguments, it concluded that Massey failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by these comments. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "State v. Massey" on Justia Law

The defendant, Roland Riemers, was found guilty of disorderly conduct by a jury after he pursued a train that was blocking a street for longer than twenty minutes, a violation of a city ordinance. Riemers parked his car near the tracks, approached the train, informed the employees of the violation, and ignited a road flare. Both Riemers and the train employees called the police, and Riemers was subsequently charged.Riemers transferred his case from the Grand Forks Municipal Court to the District Court for a jury trial. He was found guilty of disorderly conduct under the Grand Forks City Code. Riemers appealed, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to procedural errors, that he should have been prosecuted under state law rather than city ordinance, and that the court erred by not instructing the jury about the right to conduct a citizen's arrest. He also argued that no victim was identified and that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the district court did not lack jurisdiction, as the city was not required to serve the criminal information on Riemers. The court also ruled that Riemers could be prosecuted under city ordinance, as the city's disorderly conduct ordinance did not supersede state law. The court rejected Riemers' argument about the right to conduct a citizen's arrest, as he had waived any claim of error by expressing satisfaction with the jury instructions. The court also found that the criminal information was sufficient to protect Riemers from a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Finally, the court declined to review Riemers' argument about the sufficiency of the evidence, as he had not moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial. View "City of Grand Forks v. Riemers" on Justia Law

The case involves Jay Jelinek, who was appealing an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenging evidentiary rulings made by the district court during his trial. Jelinek was found by a North Dakota Game and Fish Department Warden in a field during deer hunting season. The Warden recognized Jelinek from previous encounters and knew that his hunting privileges were suspended. Jelinek was replacing batteries in a trail camera and stated that he had been sitting in a deer stand with his wife, who had a deer tag, earlier that day. Jelinek moved to suppress evidence gathered during his encounter with the Warden, arguing that he was unlawfully seized and that the Warden did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Jelinek's motion to suppress, finding that he was not subject to an improper seizure prior to his arrest and that the Warden had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Jelinek also argued that the court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on one count, as the State's only evidence of guilt was his own statements. He further argued that the court erred in allowing evidence of his criminal history to go to the jury and that his 6th Amendment rights were violated.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found that the district court did not err in denying Jelinek's motion to suppress, as there was sufficient evidence supporting the district court's findings that Jelinek was not unlawfully seized. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying Jelinek's motion for acquittal, as there was substantial independent evidence establishing the trustworthiness of Jelinek's statements to law enforcement. However, the court found that the district court erred in allowing Jelinek's criminal history to be considered by the jury after one count was dismissed. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Jelinek" on Justia Law