Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Dean Karna appealed the judgment entered on conditional pleas of guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. The issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the district court erred in denying Karna's motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement while searching his home without a warrant. After review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Karna" on Justia Law

Abdullahi Ahmed Adan and Semereab Haile Tesfaye appealed the judgments entered on conditional pleas of guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver. A police officer observed a car driven by Adan (with Tesfaye as passenger) speeding along I-94. The vehicle appeared to weave in its lane. The officer noticed the vehicle had an out-of-state plate. Though the officer saw no traffic infractions, the officer relayed his suspicions to another officer down the road. The second officer pulled the vehicle over. The second officer observed a blanket, covering approximately half of the backseat, an air freshener, a bottle of Ozone scent spray, a global positioning system ("GPS"), eye drops, a lighter, and an energy drink in the vehicle. After the traffic stop, the second officer issued Adan a warning and asked if Adan had time to answer a few more questions; Adan agreed. The officer asked a few questions about Adan's trip before asking permission to search his vehicle and have a dog walk around it. Adan did not consent. The officer called dispatch to send a K-9 to his location. Forty-five minutes later, a K-9 arrived and signaled on the presence of narcotics. After a search of the vehicle, officers seized over two pounds of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Adan and Tesfaye's motions to suppress evidence from that traffic stop, concluding there was reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and that the district court properly denied their motions to suppress evidence gathered as a result of the continued detention. View "North Dakota v. Adan" on Justia Law

Charles Russell appealed after a jury found him guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. Russell argued the district court erred when it granted the State's motion in limine preventing him from cross-examining the arresting officer about a pending criminal charge, and evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Russell possessed drug paraphernalia. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Russell" on Justia Law

Watford City Police Officer Ryan Chaffee stopped Alexander Patrick because he had more than four white front facing lights on his truck, which Chaffee believed was a violation of N.D.C.C. 39-21-25(2). Chaffee testified Patrick's vehicle had six front facing lights and the lights appeared brighter than other vehicles. Patrick's vehicle had four fog lights and two headlamps. Because of Patrick's previous contacts with law enforcement, Chaffee conducted a drug dog sniff on Patrick's vehicle. The dog alerted Chaffee to the presence of drugs in Patrick's vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle Chaffee discovered a loaded handgun, marijuana residue and cocaine. Chaffee charged Patrick with possessing cocaine with a firearm and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. The State appealed the district court order suppressing evidence seized after a traffic stop. Suppression was based on the district court's finding that the law relied on by Chaffee was unconstitutionally vague. The State argued the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion Patrick violated the law and the officer's mistake of law was reasonable. The Supreme Court found that the evidence supportd a reasonable suspicion Patrick was in violation of the statute. The district court erred in suppressing evidence obtained in the traffic stop because Chaffee's belief the law prohibited more than four front facing lights illuminated at one time was objectively reasonable, giving the officer the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the traffic stop. Because the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order suppressing evidence and remanded for further proceedings, the Court concluded that any decision on the void-for-vagueness issue would have been an improper advisory opinion. The Court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Patrick" on Justia Law

Darrius Patterson appeals from a district court order and judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. In October 2013 a jury found Patterson guilty of delivering cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. In January 2014 Patterson was sentenced to 28 years in the North Dakota Department of Corrections. Patterson argues the district court erred denying his application because he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. After careful consideration of Patterson's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court found no ineffective assistance of trial counsel and affirmed. View "Patterson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jesse Koehly appealed the district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's order suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. Koehly argued the implied consent law as to breath tests violated the state and federal constitutions, he cured his refusal, and the police officers violated his limited right to counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Koehly v. Levi" on Justia Law

Joshua Peterson pled guilty to class B felony burglary. Judgment was entered in which Peterson was sentenced to ten years imprisonment with five years suspended. Subsequently, the State moved the district court to correct the judgment. Peterson appealed the amended criminal judgment entered after the district court granted the State's motion. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err when it amended the judgment to reflect the eighty-five percent service requirement under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-09.1 applied to Peterson's sentence. View "North Dakota v. Peterson" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, Deven Schmidt appealed district court orders deferring imposition of sentence after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. Schmidt argued the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress evidence he claimed was obtained in violation of his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Concluding the district court properly denied Schmidt's motion to suppress evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

In June 2014, the State charged Delvin Shaw with murder and burglary for allegedly shooting and killing Jose Lopez after breaking into his apartment. Shaw appealed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court misapplied the law regarding the admissibility of evidence of other crimes and bad acts. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Shaw" on Justia Law

According to Deputy Sheriff Curt Olson's affidavit, he approached a running vehicle, responding to an early-morning report the vehicle was in a ditch. Olson saw the driver sleeping inside the vehicle. The driver identified himself as Chris Engelhorn and admitted he had been drinking alcohol the night before. After Engelhorn recited the alphabet and counted backwards, Olson administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, which Engelhorn failed. Englehorn also failed a preliminary breath test. Olson arrested Engelhorn for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The State filed a motion in limine requesting to use Engelhorn's HGN test results, through Olson's testimony, as evidence of impairment at trial. The district court denied the motion, concluding Engelhorn's HGN test results could not be used at trial without expert testimony establishing the scientific reliability of the HGN test. The State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding the trial court misapplied the law regarding the admissibility of HGN test results. View "North Dakota v. Engelhorn" on Justia Law