Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant, Mathew Nelson, appealed his sentence for sexual assault, gross sexual imposition, and corruption of a minor. He argued that the district court relied on impermissible factors when determining his sentence and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the district court had the discretion to consider the sentencing factors provided in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-04 and that it had not relied on impermissible factors. The Court noted that there was evidence in the record to support the court’s consideration of Nelson’s ability to control his behavior when considering the length of his sentence and that the future harm caused by Nelson’s conduct was a permissible sentencing factor to consider.The Court also found that Nelson’s argument that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment was not adequately articulated or supported, and therefore did not need to be addressed further. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court’s criminal judgments. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Dakota, Russell Everett Jr., the appellant, sought to appeal a district court's order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Everett contended that he had not been served with two orders from his first post-conviction relief proceeding, thereby denying him the right to appeal those orders. He also alleged that the discovery of these orders constituted newly discovered evidence, and that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his direct appeal.Everett had been convicted of two counts of gross sexual imposition and had been sentenced to two life sentences with the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed by this court. In his first application for post-conviction relief, Everett argued that the witness's testimony had been coerced by their family and that he had discovered new evidence that could overturn his conviction. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a violation of his right to a fair trial as the victim-witness did not attend the trial. The district court denied this application, and neither the order nor notice of entry of the order was served on Everett.In response to Everett's second application for post-conviction relief, the court summarily dismissed it. Everett subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's dismissal of Everett's second application for post-conviction relief. The court determined that Everett's claim of "newly discovered evidence" did not meet the statutory requirements as it did not pertain to his original conviction. Furthermore, the court found that Everett's appeal had been filed beyond the two-year statute of limitations for filing post-conviction relief claims, and no exception to this statute applied in this case. Additionally, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also deemed to have been filed after the statute of limitations had expired. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court had not erred in dismissing Everett's claims for post-conviction relief and ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Everett v. State" on Justia Law

In this case presided by the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the defendant, Michael Dean Hamilton, was charged with hindering law enforcement under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-03(1)(b) by providing transportation and money to an individual involved in an abduction crime in Virginia. Prior to the trial, Hamilton and the State reached a plea agreement, but the district court rejected it, citing insufficient factual basis for Hamilton's guilty plea. Instead, the district court accepted an open plea from Hamilton. On appeal, Hamilton argued that the district court had abused its discretion by rejecting the plea agreement and then accepting the open plea, despite both requiring a factual basis. He also claimed that the court had relied on impermissible sentencing factors, including information outside the record and inferences from the record.In its decision, the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that Hamilton's claim regarding the rejection of the plea agreement was waived when he entered an open guilty plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. The court stated that after entering an open plea without conditions, a defendant could only challenge the voluntary and intelligent nature of the plea. Therefore, Hamilton could no longer challenge the non-jurisdictional defects of the district court's rejection of the plea agreement.Regarding the sentencing factors, the Supreme Court found that the district court did not commit an obvious error when it considered information outside the record and relied on its personal knowledge about Amber alerts in deciding Hamilton's sentence. The court stated that Hamilton had not demonstrated that the factors considered by the court were a clear deviation from the applicable statutory provisions, case law, or rules of evidence. As a result, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

In November 2021, Mark Bearce was charged with two counts of driving under the influence resulting in death and four counts of reckless endangerment. In October 2022, Bearce pled guilty to the two driving under the influence charges in exchange for the dismissal of the reckless endangerment charges. The district court sentenced Bearce to a 12-year prison term for the first count and a 20-year term with 8 years suspended for the second count, with the sentences to be served consecutively. In December 2022, Bearce filed a motion to amend the judgment, claiming he was not given credit for time served. The court amended the judgment, giving Bearce credit for 15 days of time served. In January 2023, Bearce filed another motion for a reduction of his sentence, which the court granted in April 2023, amending his sentence so that the two counts would run concurrently. However, the court did not provide reasons for this reduction.The State of North Dakota appealed this decision. The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision to reduce Bearce's sentence but noted that the lower court had erred by not stating its reasons for the reduction in writing, as required by North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure 35(b). The Supreme Court also noted that it could not reverse or modify a criminal judgment in a way that would increase the defendant's punishment, as per North Dakota Century Code § 29-28-35. The Supreme Court also concluded that the lower court did not err in reducing Bearce's sentence without considering the victim's rights, as neither the victim nor anyone else had asserted these rights. View "State v. Bearce" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of North Dakota, the appellant Jean-Michael Kisi appealed from orders dismissing in part and denying in part his application for postconviction relief. Kisi contended that he was wrongfully convicted of a non-cognizable offense, accomplice to attempted murder. He further argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, the lower court followed improper trial procedures, and the State committed prosecutorial misconduct.The Supreme Court of North Dakota upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that an attempted knowing murder is not a cognizable offense. However, the Court found that the erroneous inclusion of "knowing" in the jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence presented indicated that the jury convicted Kisi of attempted intentional murder.Kisi's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also dismissed. The Court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the representation of his counsel did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Kisi's claims regarding improper trial procedure and prosecutorial misconduct were summarily dismissed. The Court, therefore, affirmed the lower court's order dismissing in part and denying in part Kisi's application for postconviction relief. View "Kisi v. State" on Justia Law

In the State of North Dakota, the defendant, Demetris Haney, was involved in a shooting in a bar's parking lot. Haney was charged with reckless endangerment and terrorizing, among other charges. The trial took place in August 2022, where the state presented surveillance footage showing Haney firing multiple rounds at an individual before they returned fire. Haney testified that he only returned fire when shot at. After the state rested its case, Haney moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, which the district court denied. The jury found Haney not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of two counts of the lesser-included offense of aggravated assault and guilty of reckless endangerment and terrorizing.On appeal, Haney argued that the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the terrorizing charge. He claimed that the state failed to prove the terrorizing charge because he did not "threaten" to commit any violent crime or dangerous act. The State of North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that a rational fact-finder could find Haney guilty of terrorizing based on the evidence presented at trial, and therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.Haney also argued that the district court violated his constitutional right to a public trial by conducting in-chamber conferences without the necessary findings or obtaining a waiver from Haney. The Supreme Court concluded that these conferences were not closures implicating Haney's public trial right and that Haney did not establish obvious error in the district court's failure to create a record of these conferences.Lastly, Haney argued that the district court denied his right to due process, but he did not provide any factual or legal analysis to support this claim. The Supreme Court declined to consider this claim, as Haney did not provide relevant authority or meaningful reasoning to support it.As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, upholding Haney's convictions. View "State v. Haney" on Justia Law

Eli Richter appealed an order deferring imposition of a sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of the unlawful use of an operator's license. The State charged Richter with the unlawful use of the license, alleging he showed a counterfeit Minnesota driver's license to a police officer in Grand Forks, North Dakota. At trial, the officer testified the "license was nonexistent or it was never issued through any state." At the close of the State's case, Richter moved to acquittal, arguing "the definition [of operator's license] stats an operator's license is issued or granted by the laws of this state. The ID that was taken from Mr. Richter is not issued under the laws of this state. It does not meet the definition, Your Honor." The district court denied the motion and the jury ultimately found Richter guilty. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred: N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 made it a crime to display a fictitious license. View "North Dakota v. Richter" on Justia Law

David Geiger was convicted by jury of stalking. The victim testified she was an employee at a bank where Geiger was a customer. The victim, in conjunction with other bank employees, decided to close out Geiger’s account after what the victim described as abusive conduct by Geiger towards bank employees. Geiger was informed of the closure and instructed to collect the remaining funds in his account through the drive-up window. The victim and other employees then observed Geiger sitting in his car across the street. Due to concerns surrounding this behavior, bank staff contacted law enforcement to escort staff from the building to their vehicles at closing. Later that same night, the victim received a phone call to her personal phone, verified by law enforcement as having been placed from a phone belonging to Geiger. Upon answering the call, the victim’s husband said “hello” several times, but there was no response. These incidents served as grounds for the stalking charge. On appeal, Geiger argued the district court failed to make a mandatory determination regarding whether the conduct he was alleged to have engaged in was constitutionally protected. He further argued the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of guilty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Geiger" on Justia Law

Danial Curtis was convicted of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information. At trial, a bank teller testified Curtis entered the bank where she worked producing a check for cashing. The teller noticed several "red flags" on the check; her manager testified to noticing the same red flags. The manager contacted the account holder to inquire if the check was authorized; the account holder testified she had thrown out any checks she had remaining once she closed the account. Representing himself, Curtis called a friend who testified Curtis was not attempting to cash the check, but was only attempting to see if the check was valid. Based on the evidence presented, the district court found beyond a reasonable doubt Curtis willfully presented the check to cash, and found Curtis guilty of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information "to obtain money without the authorization of consent of the holder of the account, and the value of the money exceeded $1,000." On appeal, Curtis argued there was insufficient information presented to support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Curtis' conviction. View "North Dakota v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Ashton Steele appealed after conditionally pleading guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. The plea reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Steele had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rented bedroom and a reasonable officer would not have believed the homeowner could consent to a search of the bedroom. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Steele" on Justia Law