Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Cole Peters appealed his convictions for: terrorizing, two counts of gross sexual imposition, attempted murder, and felonious restraint. Peters argued on appeal that the State violated his right to a speedy trial, that the district court erred when it failed to exclude duplicate photographs of B.C., the victim, and that the court should have given a curative instruction to the jury on the duplicate pictures. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. View "North Dakota v. Peters" on Justia Law

Ryan Kratz appealed after the district court denied his motion seeking to correct an illegal sentence and dismissed his application for post-conviction relief. The court held Kratz had failed to sufficiently support his application and found it would not be equitable for the application to be heard pursuant to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the application for post-conviction relief. View "Kratz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Wendy Davis-Heinze appealed her conviction for reckless endangerment. She argued on appeal that the district court conducted an off-the-record discussion with counsel outside the courtroom and outside of the view of the public in violation of her right to public trial under the Sixth Amendment. She also argued there was insufficient evidence to convict her. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the non-public discussion was not a trial closure in violation of the Sixth Amendment public trial right. View "North Dakota v. Davis-Heinze" on Justia Law

Robert Goff appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer’s decision to suspend his driving privileges and denying costs and attorney’s fees. In December 2021, Fargo Police Department officers responded to a report of an unresponsive motorist parked in the parking lot of an apartment building. When Officer Blake Omberg arrived at the scene, he saw an individual, later identified as Goff, asleep in a pickup truck parked in the parking lot. Another officer and emergency personnel were already at the scene. Firefighters eventually unlocked the vehicle and Goff was awoken by law enforcement. Goff called his father, John Goff, an attorney who owned the apartment building and parking lot. John Goff arrived at the scene and spoke with law enforcement. Robert Goff was eventually arrested for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Department of Transportation issued Goff a report and notice informing him that it intended to suspend his driving privileges. Goff requested an administrative hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the suspension, concluding the public does not have a right of access to a private parking lot for vehicular use when the lot is marked “private property” and a city ordinance makes such use unlawful when so marked. The case was remanded to the district court to reconsider costs and attorney’s fees. View "Goff v. NDDOT" on Justia Law

Jody Kuntz appealed a district court order denying her application for post-conviction relief. Kuntz was charged with criminal mischief and criminal trespass. Before trial, Kuntz pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced according to a negotiated agreement. Kuntz subsequently filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to withdraw her guilty pleas. Kuntz argued there was new evidence to show she was incompetent at the time she entered her guilty pleas and it would be a manifest injustice if she were unable to withdraw her guilty pleas. Finding no reversible error in the district court order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kuntz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Elijah Addai appealed after a district court’s dismissed his request for post-conviction relief. Addai was convicted by jury of class AA felony murder for the fatal stabbing of David Delonais. Addai claimed the North Dakota Supreme Court’s discussion of public trials in North Dakota v. Martinez, 956 N.W.2d 772 (2021), created a new rule that had to be applied retroactively, was applicable to his case, and precluded the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed dismissal of the request for post-conviction relief. View "Addai v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Christopher Vickerman was convicted by jury of a class AA felony murder. Vickerman argued on appeal that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay statements of the victim; (3) he was denied his right to confront a witness; (4) the trial judge demonstrated impermissible bias during sentencing; and (5) the court imposed an improper sentence of a term of years exceeding his life expectancy when the maximum sentence of life without parole requires the calculation of his life expectancy. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Vickerman" on Justia Law

Jason Vogt appealed the dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief. He pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Here, Vogt claimed he was innocent and his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Further, he contended his guilty plea was made involuntarily, and his confession was coerced. Vogt presented a psychological assessment that he claimed was newly discovered evidence. The assessment was prepared after his application for relief was filed, and opined Vogt may have involuntarily waived his rights and falsely confessed. Appealing the dismissal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Vogt argued the State waived its affirmative defenses and its motion for dismissal was untimely. Finding no reversible error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Vogt’s application for relief. View "Vogt v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Dustin Lyman was convicted by jury of driving while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. On appeal, Lyman argued the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial, claiming the State’s opening statement constituted prosecutorial misconduct and violated his rights to a fair trial. Finding no such misconduct, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court judgment. View "North Dakota v. Lyman" on Justia Law

In October 2018, Robert Pulkrabek was charged with driving under the influence, resisting arrest, and driving under suspension. In July 2020, he was charged with driving under suspension and failure to transfer title. In November 2020, he was charged with three counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds. In March 2021, he was charged with two counts of terrorizing. On June 1, 2021, Pulkrabek filed a request for final disposition of the pending charges within 90 days under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-33. If not waived or extended, the 90 day deadline expired on August 30, 2021. At the first status conference in June 2021, the district court allowed Pulkrabek’s attorney to withdraw. The court then discussed the timeline for trials with Pulkrabek and told Pulkrabek he would be assigned new counsel. The court advised Pulkrabek he was entitled to trials within 90 days but asked if he was comfortable with the trial dates already scheduled in three of the cases. Pulkrabek responded “yes” and stated “I’m comfortable with those dates.” Trials were set for October 6 and 8, 2021. A second attorney was appointed a week after the first withdrew; a continuance was granted. Due to transportation problems, Pulkrabek was unable to attend the preliminary hearing, so it was rescheduled for October 7, 2021. Pulkrabek’s second attorney moved to withdraw from the representation on September 27, 2021. At an October 2021 status conference, the district court granted the withdrawal and stated the trials and preliminary hearing would be rescheduled due to a third attorney assignment. The court advised Pulkrabek that would be the final time trials were continued. Pulkrabek told the court he was filing a motion to dismiss his pending cases. Days later, a third attorney was appointed to represent Pulkrabek. On October 15, Pulkrabek moved to dismiss the charges against me for expiration of the 90 day deadline. When that was denied, Pulkrabek subsequently entered into a global plea agreement covering all cases and pleaded guilty to the charges. On appeal of his convictions Pulkrabek argued district court committed a structural error by violating his right to counsel when asking Pulkrabek whether he agreed to trial dates outside the 90 day window in the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Pulkrabek" on Justia Law