Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In December 2021, Jordan Juneau was charged in Wells County with attempted murder, armed robbery, and burglary. Later that month, he was charged in Stutsman County with unauthorized use of personal identifying information. In July 2022, he faced additional charges in Stutsman County for theft of property and criminal mischief. On May 10, 2023, Juneau entered Alford pleas in the Stutsman County cases based on a binding plea agreement, which stipulated he would not receive a sentence exceeding four years. The district court accepted his pleas but deferred sentencing to a different judge, who could accept or reject the plea agreement.At the August 24, 2023 hearing, the sentencing judge treated Juneau’s plea as an open plea and sentenced him to five years, exceeding the agreed-upon four-year limit. Juneau applied for postconviction relief in September 2023, arguing his sentence was illegal as it did not adhere to the plea agreement. The State did not oppose a remand for further dispositional hearings. However, the district court denied Juneau’s application, finding the nature of the plea agreement unclear and concluding he failed to establish his sentence was illegal.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and found the district court’s determination that Juneau’s plea agreement was unclear to be clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court held that Juneau’s sentence was illegal because it did not comply with the binding plea agreement. The court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case, instructing the lower court to determine the terms of the plea agreement and either accept or reject it in compliance with Rule 11(c). If the terms cannot be determined, Juneau must be allowed to withdraw his pleas in the relevant case. View "Juneau v. State" on Justia Law

Barry Lindeman was convicted of gross sexual imposition in January 2021 and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment with ten years suspended, along with fifty years of probation. On direct appeal, the conviction and sentence were summarily affirmed. In February 2022, Lindeman filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued that his trial attorneys failed to file a motion to suppress his confessions and did not request funding to retain an expert witness to testify about the veracity of the confessions.The District Court of Ward County granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, finding that Lindeman failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or substantial prejudice resulting from the alleged ineffective assistance.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Lindeman did not provide any evidence that he was substantially prejudiced by his counsel's alleged ineffectiveness. Specifically, Lindeman did not explain why or how he would have prevailed on a motion to suppress his confessions. Additionally, he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to retain an expert witness, as he did not demonstrate how the expert's testimony would have been favorable or affected the trial's outcome. The court concluded that Lindeman's conclusory allegations were insufficient to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Lindeman v. State" on Justia Law

Charles Werner was charged with DUI–.08% or greater–1st offense and simple assault, both class B misdemeanors. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that the subsequent interview was an improper custodial interrogation. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where the arresting officer testified, and bodycam footage was reviewed.The District Court of McHenry County denied Werner’s motion to suppress. Werner then entered a conditional guilty plea to the DUI charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion. The simple assault charge was dismissed. The court entered a judgment on the DUI charge, which was later amended to reflect the conditional nature of the plea.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that law enforcement had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Werner’s vehicle based on the information provided by the victim and the circumstances observed by the officers. The court also found that Werner was not subject to an unlawful custodial interrogation, as he was not formally arrested, was told he was not under arrest, and was not restrained or isolated during the questioning. The court held that the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Werner" on Justia Law

In 2018, Kevin Hoff pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life without parole. Since his conviction, Hoff has filed three applications for postconviction relief. His first application, filed in May 2020, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and newly discovered evidence. The amended application, which abandoned the newly discovered evidence claim, was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Hoff's second application, filed in December 2021, claimed his trial counsel incorrectly advised him about the defense of others. The State moved to dismiss this application as time-barred and for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process. The district court granted the State's motions, and Hoff did not appeal.Hoff's third application claimed a mental disease excepted him from the two-year limitation, his trial counsel incorrectly advised him, and newly discovered evidence existed. He also filed a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the order denying his second application. The district court consolidated the Rule 60(b) motion with the third application and held an evidentiary hearing. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss based on the two-year limitation, granted the State's motion for summary disposition based on res judicata and misuse of process, denied Hoff's application, and dismissed his Rule 60(b) motion.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that the sequestration order did not apply to all witnesses and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a witness to testify. The court also held that Hoff's third application for postconviction relief was precluded by the two-year limitation and that Hoff did not demonstrate he met the exception for a physical disability or mental disease. The court did not address the res judicata and misuse of process claims, as the application was already precluded by the two-year limitation. View "Hoff v. State" on Justia Law

Cassidy Cody Johnson was charged with gross sexual imposition, luring minors by computer, and possession of prohibited materials in August 2024. Johnson and the State reached a plea agreement where Johnson would plead guilty to the first and third charges, resulting in a 50-year sentence with 25 years suspended for the first charge and a concurrent 5-year sentence for the third charge. The second charge was dismissed. The district court accepted the plea agreement, and Johnson was sentenced accordingly. Johnson appealed the judgment.The District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial District, accepted the plea agreement and imposed the sentence. Johnson appealed, arguing that the district court erred by sentencing him to 25 years on the gross sexual imposition charge, imposing an unreasonable lifetime no-contact order and lifetime sexual offender registration, and failing to ensure his plea was knowing and voluntary. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not negotiating a better plea agreement or taking the case to trial.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and applied the abuse of discretion standard. The court found that Johnson's sentence was within the statutory limits and resulted from a negotiated plea agreement. Johnson did not move to withdraw his plea or establish a manifest injustice. The court also declined to review Johnson's argument about the lifetime sexual offender registration because it was raised for the first time during oral argument on appeal. The court found that the district court did consider mitigating factors and did not abuse its discretion. Additionally, the court held that Johnson waived appellate review of his claim regarding the N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 advisory by not objecting or moving to withdraw his plea. The court also declined to address Johnson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal due to the inadequacy of the record.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Grant Grensteiner was charged with 17 counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and 18 counts of theft of property after a traffic stop led to the discovery of stolen firearms and other items. Grensteiner, a passenger in the vehicle, moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and probable cause to search the towed vehicle. The district court denied the motion, finding traffic violations justified the stop and probable cause extended to the towed vehicle due to a drug detection dog's alert.The district court held a jury trial, and Grensteiner moved for a judgment of acquittal after the State's case-in-chief, which was denied. The jury found him guilty on all counts. Grensteiner appealed, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the traffic violations provided a lawful basis for the stop and the probable cause to search the towing vehicle extended to the towed vehicle. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Grensteiner's convictions, noting his control over the towed vehicle and the presence of stolen items. Additionally, the court concluded that the State's questioning of a detective did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct or improperly shift the burden of proof to Grensteiner. The court emphasized that the jury instructions clearly stated the State's burden of proof and the defendant's presumption of innocence. View "State v. Grensteiner" on Justia Law

Bradley Graff was charged with gross sexual imposition involving a victim under the age of 15. Before the trial, the district court ruled that Graff's prior convictions and status as a sex offender would be inadmissible. During the trial, the State's examination of a witness violated this order, leading to a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice.The State appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the charge with prejudice without properly determining whether the State acted in bad faith or through prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the district court to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or prosecutorial misconduct and to consider lesser sanctions.On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and found that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct but did not act maliciously or attempt to delay the trial. The court determined that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate. Graff appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by not dismissing the case with prejudice.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court's decision was based on a rational mental process and did not misinterpret or misapply the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case without prejudice, concluding that the district court did not act arbitrarily, unconscionably, or unreasonably. View "State v. Graff" on Justia Law

Alexander Gothberg called 911, reporting that his two-year-old child had possibly overdosed on fentanyl. When officers arrived, Gothberg opened his apartment door, holding the child, and described the situation while walking back into the apartment. The officers followed him inside, believing they were to assist the child. Gothberg explained that he had administered Narcan and performed CPR on the child, who then regained consciousness. The officers observed the apartment in disarray and found evidence of drug use. Gothberg consented to the officers looking around the apartment and disclosed the presence of a handgun and controlled substances.The District Court of Grand Forks County denied Gothberg's motion to suppress evidence, finding that he had consented to the officers entering his apartment and that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement applied. The court also concluded that the plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines did not apply because no items were seized until a warrant was obtained. Gothberg conditionally pled guilty to six counts, including drug-related offenses and child endangerment, and appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Gothberg's affirmative conduct, such as calling 911, opening the door, and describing the situation, indicated consent for the officers to enter his apartment. The court also found that the officers' entry and search were justified under the consent exception to the warrant requirement. The court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by sufficient competent evidence and were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. View "State v. Gothberg" on Justia Law

James Thesing was charged with domestic violence in November 2022 and released under a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the alleged victim. In March 2023, he was arrested for violating this order by initiating contact with the protected person while in custody. He was charged with two counts of violating the order, class A misdemeanors. In July 2023, the original domestic violence charge was dismissed, and the pre-dispositional order was terminated.Thesing filed a motion to dismiss one count in November 2023, arguing that the order only applied while he was released from custody. The District Court of Cass County denied the motion in December 2023, concluding that the order remained in effect after his arrest, was not contingent on release, and met constitutional requirements. Thesing entered a conditional guilty plea in February 2024, preserving his right to appeal, and the other count was dismissed. He appealed in March 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on statutory interpretation. The court found that the statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-02, unambiguously allowed the pre-dispositional order to remain in effect even after Thesing was taken back into custody. The court also noted that the order itself explicitly prohibited contact by any means and was to terminate only upon case disposition unless modified by the court.Thesing's argument that the order was a condition of release and did not apply while he was in custody was rejected. The court also dismissed his claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, noting that his brief lacked supporting arguments and citations. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Thesing" on Justia Law

In 2014, Lorry Van Chase was convicted of gross sexual imposition and sentenced to forty years in prison. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Chase filed three applications for postconviction relief. In his first application, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a conflict of interest, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. His second application was dismissed as barred by res judicata and misuse of process. The third application was initially dismissed but later remanded for proper procedure.The District Court of Rolette County held an evidentiary hearing on Chase’s third application, which included claims of newly discovered evidence and improper jury contact. Chase conceded that his trial attorney had received the medical record before trial, thus it could not be considered newly discovered evidence. Regarding the jury contact, a juror testified that a uniformed person entered the jury room and stated that a unanimous decision was required. However, the juror could not definitively identify the person, and no other jurors corroborated the claim.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court found that the medical record was not newly discovered evidence as it was available before the trial. The court also upheld the district court’s finding that the juror’s testimony about improper jury contact was not credible, noting inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Chase’s application for postconviction relief based on these grounds. View "Chase v. State" on Justia Law