Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Richie Wilder appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and from an order partially granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Wilder argued his conviction had to be reversed and he was entitled to a new trial because his constitutional right to remain silent was violated by the State's improper comments during closing argument. He alternatively argued his sentence was illegal and should be amended because the district court erred by ordering him to have no contact with his children until they turn 18 years old. A comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The statutory sentencing provisions did not authorize the sentencing court to order no contact as part of a prison sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to Wilder's conviction, reversed the judgment as to his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Wilder" on Justia Law

Richie Wilder appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of murder and from an order partially granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Wilder argued his conviction had to be reversed and he was entitled to a new trial because his constitutional right to remain silent was violated by the State's improper comments during closing argument. He alternatively argued his sentence was illegal and should be amended because the district court erred by ordering him to have no contact with his children until they turn 18 years old. A comment on the defendant's post-arrest silence is an improper comment on the right to remain silent in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The statutory sentencing provisions did not authorize the sentencing court to order no contact as part of a prison sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as to Wilder's conviction, reversed the judgment as to his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Wilder" on Justia Law

In 2015, Amira Gunn and Calvin Till communicated in private conversations on MeetMe.com, a social networking website. Gunn and Till exchanged more than 700 messages between November 11 and 13. In a portion of the conversations, Gunn gave explicit and lewd instructions to Till on how to groom and sexually assault his young daughter and how to abduct and sexually assault Till's two neighbor children. During an interview with police, Gunn admitted to having the conversations with Till, acknowledging she knew of Till's sexual fetish for children including his own daughter. Gunn stated she believed Till's daughter was approximately six years old. Gunn characterized the conversations with Till as role-playing. Gunn was ultimately convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). At trial, a police detective testified he believed the initial conversations between Gunn and Till involved role-playing. The detective testified he believed the role-playing eventually ceased and Gunn and Till reassumed their own identities. The detective testified that later in the conversations Till relayed to Gunn that he was sexually assaulting his daughter in real-time. Gunn argued on appeal of her conviction and sentence there was no evidence of a victim in this case: because Till's daughter was not present during the online conversations and that the neighbor children could have been imaginary, thus no victim. Gunn also claimed that since Till did not commit the crime of gross sexual imposition, there was no evidence that Gunn aided him in any way. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in this matter, and affirmed Gunn’s conviction and sentence. View "North Dakota v. Gunn" on Justia Law

In 2015, Amira Gunn and Calvin Till communicated in private conversations on MeetMe.com, a social networking website. Gunn and Till exchanged more than 700 messages between November 11 and 13. In a portion of the conversations, Gunn gave explicit and lewd instructions to Till on how to groom and sexually assault his young daughter and how to abduct and sexually assault Till's two neighbor children. During an interview with police, Gunn admitted to having the conversations with Till, acknowledging she knew of Till's sexual fetish for children including his own daughter. Gunn stated she believed Till's daughter was approximately six years old. Gunn characterized the conversations with Till as role-playing. Gunn was ultimately convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition (a class A felony). At trial, a police detective testified he believed the initial conversations between Gunn and Till involved role-playing. The detective testified he believed the role-playing eventually ceased and Gunn and Till reassumed their own identities. The detective testified that later in the conversations Till relayed to Gunn that he was sexually assaulting his daughter in real-time. Gunn argued on appeal of her conviction and sentence there was no evidence of a victim in this case: because Till's daughter was not present during the online conversations and that the neighbor children could have been imaginary, thus no victim. Gunn also claimed that since Till did not commit the crime of gross sexual imposition, there was no evidence that Gunn aided him in any way. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error in this matter, and affirmed Gunn’s conviction and sentence. View "North Dakota v. Gunn" on Justia Law

Harold Olson appealed a district court order affirming the North Dakota Department of Transportation's ("Department") revocation of his driving privileges for two years, following an arrest for driving under the influence. The revocation of driving privileges for refusal to submit to chemical testing requires a valid arrest; in the absence of authority from Congress, the State lacks criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-member Indians on tribal land. Whether an officer has jurisdiction to arrest depends on the law of the place where the arrest is made. Olson argued the deputy lacked the authority to arrest him on tribal land and that a valid arrest was a prerequisite to revocation of his driving privileges. Absent a valid arrest, Olson argued the revocation order was not in accordance with the law. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the deputy lacked authority to arrest Olson, a non-member Indian, on Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation tribal land. The Court therefore reversed the district court's order affirming the Department's revocation of Olson's driving privileges and reinstated Olson's driving privileges. View "Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Harold Olson appealed a district court order affirming the North Dakota Department of Transportation's ("Department") revocation of his driving privileges for two years, following an arrest for driving under the influence. The revocation of driving privileges for refusal to submit to chemical testing requires a valid arrest; in the absence of authority from Congress, the State lacks criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-member Indians on tribal land. Whether an officer has jurisdiction to arrest depends on the law of the place where the arrest is made. Olson argued the deputy lacked the authority to arrest him on tribal land and that a valid arrest was a prerequisite to revocation of his driving privileges. Absent a valid arrest, Olson argued the revocation order was not in accordance with the law. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the deputy lacked authority to arrest Olson, a non-member Indian, on Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation tribal land. The Court therefore reversed the district court's order affirming the Department's revocation of Olson's driving privileges and reinstated Olson's driving privileges. View "Olson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Michael Terrill appealed a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Terrill argued the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Terrill" on Justia Law

Michael Terrill appealed a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Terrill argued the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Terrill" on Justia Law

Steven Sauter appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to criminal vehicular homicide, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood-alcohol test. Sauter argued there was not sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision that exigent circumstances permitted the warrantless blood-alcohol test. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the warrantless blood-alcohol test was authorized under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, and thus affirmed the trial court’s denial of Sauter’s suppression motion. View "North Dakota v. Sauter" on Justia Law

Steven Sauter appealed a judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to criminal vehicular homicide, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood-alcohol test. Sauter argued there was not sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision that exigent circumstances permitted the warrantless blood-alcohol test. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the warrantless blood-alcohol test was authorized under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, and thus affirmed the trial court’s denial of Sauter’s suppression motion. View "North Dakota v. Sauter" on Justia Law