Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

P.S. appealed a district court’s judgment denying his petition to be discharged from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. P.S. argued the court erred in finding he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior and that by concluding he had to remain in a clinical setting, the court exceeded its authority under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 by ordering a specific treatment program—a role expressly assigned to the executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding the court did not clearly err in determining P.S. had serious difficulty controlling his behavior, but did exceed its authority as established in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 by determining a specific treatment. View "Interest of P.S." on Justia Law

G.L.D. appeals from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. In 1996, G.L.D. was incarcerated after a conviction for gross sexual imposition. As his release date approached, the State petitioned to have G.L.D. committed to the North Dakota State Hospital. In 2007, G.L.D. was committed as a sexually dangerous individual (SDI). Since then, G.L.D. has requested discharge hearings and appealed the denial of those requests. In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing. The hearing was held on September 26, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the district court denied G.L.D.’s request for discharge. G.L.D. timely appealed. He argued the district court erred in finding he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Under the clear-and-convincing standard of review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded such evidence supported the district court’s finding the State showed a nexus between G.L.D.’s antisocial personality disorder and his inability to control his behavior. The district court’s finding that G.L.D. has serious difficulty controlling his behavior was thus not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of G.L.D." on Justia Law

Alvin Brown appealed an order revoking probation. In 2020, Brown pled guilty to two counts of endangerment of a child, a class C felony. The district court sentenced him to a term of incarceration followed by two years of supervised probation. In July 2022, Brown’s probation officer petitioned for revocation of his probation, alleging a series of violations including failing to report to the probation office, failing to attend treatment, using illegal substances, drinking alcohol, and leaving the re-entry center while intoxicated. At the August 2022 hearing, Brown admitted to committing all five violations. On appeal of the revocation, Brown argued the district court erred by revoking his probation without giving him notice of the allegations against him and by making inadequate findings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Jorge Sanchez was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20- 03(2)(c), sexual contact—victim unaware. Sanchez argued on appeal the district court erred by allowing hearsay evidence at trial. Sanchez also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the criminal conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Alexander Nelson appealed a district court judgment affirming the Department of Transportation hearing officer’s decision revoking his driving privileges for two years. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded there was not a valid request to submit to a screening test in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(3) to support a determination of refusal to submit to testing under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14. The Court therefore reversed the district court judgment and the Department’s decision and remanded to reinstate Nelson’s driving privileges. View "Nelson v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Matthew Walsh appealed an amended criminal judgment entered against him. In 2021, Walsh was charged with theft of property. Walsh argued the district court did not follow N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1) and advise him of its authority to order restitution before he gave his guilty plea. The record showed the district court told Walsh about potential restitution before he pleaded guilty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Walsh" on Justia Law

Travis Smith was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. Smith argued questions from the State during trial amounted to prosecutorial misconduct and burden shifting. Smith further argued the district court violated his constitutional right to a public trial, and abused its discretion by admitting cumulative and improperly noticed expert testimony. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Smith" on Justia Law

Demoris Frederick was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. Frederick argued the district court created a structural error by denying his constitutional right to a public trial, and created a reversible error by conducting voir dire off the record, making a transcript of the jury selection unavailable. Because Frederick did not demonstrate any portion of trial was held privately, or that the public was asked to leave the courtroom or was not allowed in, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded his right to a public trial was not violated. Because Frederick also had not demonstrated an error affecting his substantial rights when the district court failed to create an adequate record during a bench conference in open court, the Court concluded he failed to demonstrate obvious error. The Court therefore affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Frederick" on Justia Law

Brian Schaf was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition and disorderly conduct. Schaf argued on appeal that the district court: (1) abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony; (2) erred in denying Schaf’s request for a lesser included offense of sexual assault; and (3) erred by incorrectly instructing the jury that consideration of Schaf’s intoxication was limited to one element of gross sexual imposition. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schaf" on Justia Law

Benjamin Hannesson appealed his convictions for gross sexual imposition, burglary, theft of property, terrorizing, felonious restraint, and two counts of physical obstruction of a government function. The charges were based on an incident that occurred near Walhalla, North Dakota. The State alleged Hannesson broke into a woman’s home in the middle of the night, restrained her, sexually assaulted her, stole money, and threatened to slit her throat if she called the police. Appealing to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Hannesson argued the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdicts and his right to due process was violated by prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Hannesson's convictions. View "North Dakota v. Hannesson" on Justia Law