Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ requiring the district court to grant the State's motion to amend its criminal complaint against Ward County Sheriff Steven Kukowski to allege that criminal conduct occurred in 2014 rather than 2015. The Supreme Court concluded this was an appropriate case to exercise discretionary supervisory jurisdiction, and directed the district court to grant the State's motion to amend the criminal complaint. View "North Dakota v. Romanick" on Justia Law

Steven Gibson entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court rejected his claim that the State violated his right to a speedy trial. The issue his case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the ninety-day period under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 began when Gibson gave his speedy trial request to the prison for mailing or whether it began when the district court and the state's attorney received Gibson's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the ninety-day period under N.D.C.C. 29-19-02 began when the district court and the state's attorney received Gibson's request for a speedy trial and thus that Gibson's trial was scheduled within ninety days. View "North Dakota v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Michael Cox appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pled guilty to assault. Cox argued he did not receive all of the discovery he requested and he could not make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea without viewing all of the relevant information. Cox requested the Supreme Court remand his case for the district court to determine whether he was entitled to withdraw his plea. Finding that Cox appealed the criminal judgment, but he did not raise any issues related to the criminal judgment on appeal. Rather, Cox only requested that this case be remanded to the district court to determine whether he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court neither filed nor ruled on those motions, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Cox" on Justia Law

Wesley Cody appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Cody was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment related to a stabbing incident in Morton County. The district court appointed counsel to defend Cody on those charges. In 2014, Cody pled guilty to reckless endangerment. As part of his plea agreement, the State dismissed a class C felony aggravated assault charge alleging Cody stabbed another person. Cody was sentenced to one year with the North Dakota Department of Corrections, suspended for a period of three years. He was placed on probation. On February 3, 2015, Cody's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve two years with the North Dakota Department of Corrections. In 2015, Cody filed an application for post-conviction relief. In his application, Cody claimed he had new evidence and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before denying his application. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing unless requested by a party. Because the district court may deny a defendant's application for post-conviction relief on the merits after the defendant is provided notice and an opportunity to present evidence, the Court affirmed. View "Cody v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

After the United States Supreme Court remanded these administrative license suspension cases to the North Dakota Supreme Court for further proceedings under "Birchfield v. North Dakota," (136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016)), the North Dakota Court directed reargument on issues about: (1) the appropriate forum to determine findings regarding voluntariness of the drivers' consent to warrantless blood tests incident to a lawful arrest; and (2) if the drivers' consent was not voluntary, whether evidence must be suppressed in an administrative license suspension proceeding. For purposes of these appeals only, the Court assumed the drivers' consent to the warrantless blood tests as involuntary and concluded the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of the results of the warrantless blood tests in the license suspension proceedings. The Court therefore affirmed the judgments upholding the suspensions. View "Beylund v. Levi" on Justia Law

The State, through Ward County Assistant State's Attorney Marie Miller, petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ directing the district court to vacate its order excluding Special Agent Pat Helfrich's testimony in the matter of “North Dakota v. Pittenger,” pending in North Central Judicial District Court. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the district court to vacate its order excluding the testimony of Special Agent Pat Helfrich. The Court concluded the district court's order was premature, directed the court to allow the trial to go forward, and to enter its rulings on the proffered testimony as it was offered in such a manner as to allow the court to determine whether the proffered testimony was lay factual testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 401, lay opinion testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 701, or expert opinion testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 702. View "North Dakota v. Louser" on Justia Law

Raymond Voisine appealed a district court order finding he remained a sexually dangerous individual and denying his petition for discharge from the North Dakota State Hospital. Voisine did not contest he met the first factor of a sexually dangerous individual, that he has engaged in sexually predatory conduct. Rather, Voisine argued the district court erred when it determined that there was clear and convincing evidence that he: (1) suffered from a congenital or acquired condition that was manifested by a sexual disorder, a personality disorder, or other mental disorder or dysfunction; (2) was likely to engage in further acts of sexually predatory conduct; and (3) had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s order, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of Voisine" on Justia Law

Keith Kraft applied for post-conviction relief to vacate his 1983 drug delivery conviction. The State moved to dismiss, arguing his application was time-barred under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01. Twenty-eight days after the State's motion, and before Kraft responded, the district court dismissed. The court denied Kraft's motion for reconsideration. Kraft appeals, arguing the district court erred by dismissing his application for post-conviction relief without allowing him thirty days to respond under the rules of civil procedure. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. “If the State's motion to dismiss does not ask the district court to go beyond the pleadings, the applicant must be allowed fourteen days to respond.” View "Kraft v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Cheryl Pfeffer was charged with delivery of a controlled substance and convicted after a two day jury trial. She appealed the district court’s order denying her post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in requiring Pfeffer to prove her appeal had a reasonable probability of success for her to have a valid claim of ineffective assistance. View "Pfeffer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Terry Brendel appealed an order forfeiting $5,000 of the $25,000 bail bond he posted for his son, Travis. Because Terry was not statutorily authorized to appeal the bond forfeiture order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Brendel" on Justia Law