Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Jorge Villazana was charged with reckless endangerment, terrorizing, and attempted murder following an incident on May 4, 2022, where he allegedly pointed a firearm at two individuals and shot one of them in the face. The State filed notices to use prior acts of domestic violence and threatening text messages as evidence under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b). Villazana moved to exclude this evidence, but the district court deferred ruling until trial. During the trial, the court admitted the text messages without objection and allowed testimony about prior domestic violence over Villazana's objection.The District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, presided over the trial. The jury found Villazana guilty of reckless endangerment with the use of a firearm and terrorizing without the use of a firearm, but acquitted him of attempted murder. Villazana appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting the 404(b) evidence, causing juror confusion and an inconsistent verdict.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimonial evidence of domestic violence under Rule 404(b) because the third prong of the test was not met at the time of admission. However, the error was deemed harmless as sufficient evidence of the crimes charged was later presented. The court also found that Villazana waived any argument regarding the text messages' admissibility by not objecting at trial.Regarding the alleged inconsistent verdict, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury's findings were not legally inconsistent. The jury could rationally find Villazana guilty of terrorizing without the use of a firearm based on the evidence presented. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Villazana" on Justia Law

In May 2020, Daniel Samaniego was charged with gross sexual imposition, a class AA felony. During his trial in May 2021, a detective testified about attempting to interview Samaniego, leading to an objection from Samaniego’s counsel, which was sustained. The jury found Samaniego guilty. Post-trial, a juror indicated that the jury discussed Samaniego’s decision not to testify. Samaniego’s counsel did not move for a new trial based on this potential jury misconduct.Samaniego appealed the criminal judgment in September 2021, arguing insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, noting the prosecutorial misconduct claim was not preserved for appeal. In May 2023, Samaniego filed for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not preserving the prosecutorial misconduct issue and not moving for a new trial based on jury misconduct. The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the application in February 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Samaniego did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different but for his counsel’s alleged errors. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct in the detective’s testimony and noted that the jury’s discussion about Samaniego not testifying did not constitute juror misconduct under the law. The court concluded that Samaniego’s trial counsel’s actions did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that Samaniego was not prejudiced by these actions. View "Samaniego v. State" on Justia Law

Thomas Roller was charged with multiple offenses, including terrorizing an adult victim, reckless endangerment, criminal mischief, unauthorized use of a vehicle, and domestic violence. The unauthorized use of a vehicle charge was dismissed before trial. The jury found Roller guilty of the remaining charges. Roller contested the jury instruction on criminal mischief, arguing it allowed for a non-cognizable offense, and also challenged his sentence as a habitual offender, claiming the court improperly considered his prior convictions.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over the trial. The jury instructions defined criminal mischief as willfully damaging property and intentionally causing pecuniary loss over $100. Roller did not object to these instructions during the trial. The jury convicted Roller on all counts. At the presentencing hearing, the court took judicial notice of Roller’s prior convictions, despite his initial objection, which he later withdrew. The court found Roller met the criteria for habitual offender status and sentenced him accordingly.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the jury instructions did not constitute obvious error, as the terms "willfully" and "intentionally" were not legally incongruent. The court also found that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of Roller’s prior convictions for sentencing purposes, as the rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing procedures. The court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion and did not impose an illegal sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "State v. Roller" on Justia Law

Trent Rolland was involved in a traffic accident with a minor, who later alleged that Rolland had been communicating with her via SnapChat, sending explicit messages and photographs, and had sexual contact with her. Rolland was charged with luring a minor and other related offenses. During his arrest, his smartphone was seized, and he was taken to the Richland County jail, where he was read his Miranda rights and subsequently made several incriminating admissions during an interview. Law enforcement obtained a warrant to search his phone, leading to additional charges.The District Court of Sargent County, Southeast Judicial District, presided over by Judge Nicholas D. Thornton, denied Rolland's motions to suppress evidence and his motion to dismiss based on his competency to stand trial. Rolland had undergone multiple psychological evaluations, with conflicting opinions on his competency. The court overruled Rolland's objection to the timeliness of one of the competency reports and found him competent to stand trial. Rolland entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the judgment, arguing errors in the competency determination and the denial of his motions to suppress evidence.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court did not provide adequate findings to support its decision on Rolland's competency. The Supreme Court noted that the district court's statements were merely a recitation of the legal standard without explaining the basis for its decision. The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded the case for 60 days for the district court to determine whether Rolland was fit to proceed before entering his conditional guilty plea, based on the record at the time of his motion to dismiss. The district court must conduct an additional competency hearing to assess the evaluators' testimony and credibility. View "State v. Rolland" on Justia Law

David Gaddie was charged with four counts of gross sexual imposition for allegedly sexually abusing a child. In a separate case, he was charged with three counts of gross sexual imposition for allegedly abusing the child's mother, but those charges were dismissed. The case involving the child proceeded to trial, and Gaddie was found guilty on all counts. On direct appeal, one conviction was reversed due to an issue with jury instructions.Gaddie then filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The State moved for partial summary dismissal, arguing that Gaddie should have raised the prosecutorial misconduct claim on direct appeal. The district court reserved ruling on this motion and held a hearing. During the hearing, it was revealed that the State had introduced a video containing statements about Gaddie abusing the child's mother, which Gaddie’s attorney had objected to during the trial. The district court denied the State's motion for partial summary dismissal but ultimately denied Gaddie’s application for postconviction relief, reasoning that the situation was a misunderstanding rather than intentional misconduct.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that prosecutorial misconduct had occurred because the State introduced inadmissible prior bad act evidence without providing the required notice under N.D.R.Ev. 404(b). The Court held that this misconduct prejudiced Gaddie’s right to a fair trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment denying postconviction relief and remanded the case with instructions to vacate the criminal judgment and enter any supplementary orders required by law. View "Gaddie v. State" on Justia Law

Ladarius Miller was charged with theft of property and deceptive writings for using falsified paystubs to purchase a vehicle from an automotive dealership in Grand Forks, North Dakota. After a warrant was issued for his arrest, Miller was apprehended in Oregon and extradited to Grand Forks. He pleaded guilty to theft of property and agreed to a plea deal that included imprisonment, various fees, and $800 in restitution, with the possibility of additional restitution to be determined within sixty days. The district court sentenced him according to the plea agreement. Subsequently, the State sought additional restitution for the costs associated with Miller's extradition, totaling $2,435.91. The district court granted this request, and Miller appealed.The District Court of Grand Forks County initially allowed Miller to contest the restitution despite the State's claim that he failed to request a hearing within the required thirty days. The court found that the State did not provide proper notice of the deadline and that a hearing had already been set, making it reasonable for Miller to assume the matter would be addressed then. The district court ultimately ordered Miller to pay the additional restitution for extradition costs.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the extradition costs were not directly related to Miller's criminal conduct of theft of property. The court emphasized that restitution must be limited to damages directly related to the offense, which was not the case here. Additionally, the court found that imposing extradition costs as prosecution costs was not permissible because it would violate the terms of Miller's binding plea agreement. Therefore, the restitution order for the extradition expenses was reversed. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law