Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

On June 15, 2014, Minot police arrested defendant-appellant Robert Putney for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. The City of Minot charged Putney with simple assault for violating a city ordinance. On June 16, 2014, Putney pled guilty to the charge in municipal court and the court sentenced him to 30 days in jail. In July, the State charged Putney with aggravated assault for shooting his girlfriend during the June 2014 incident. Putney moved to dismiss the charge because of double jeopardy, claiming the two charges related to the same incident. The State argued there were two assaults. The district court denied the motion. Following a bench trial, the court found Putney guilty of aggravated assault. Putney moved for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. The court denied the motions, concluding it could not judicially notice the city ordinance, resulting in its inability to perform a double jeopardy analysis. The court sentenced Putney to four years in prison followed by five years of probation and reserved jurisdiction to determine restitution at a later date. Putney appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the State sought to have Putney pay $99,117.55 in restitution for the victim's medical expenses. Following a hearing, the court ordered Putney to pay $49,559 to the Crime Victims Reparation Fund and Trinity Medical Center, and he appealed the restitution order. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Putney" on Justia Law

According to testimony at the suppression hearing, in October 2013, Fargo Police Officer Matt Christensen received information from a department detective that defendant-appellant Chili Musselman would be traveling from Washington State to Fargo on an Amtrak train and that she would have drugs in her possession. The detective had obtained this information from a named informant in another case. Officer Christensen testified the informant's information given to the detective matched up with other information he had been given from drug task force officers, including Officer Christopher McCarthy. Officer Christensen passed the information on to other officers, including McCarthy, who were investigating Musselman in another case. Musselman appealed after a jury found her guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. On appeal, she argued a Fourth Amendment violation because the police officers who arrested her did not have reasonable grounds to stop and question her at the train station. Because there was reasonable suspicion to stop her, the order denying the motion to suppress was proper. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Musselman" on Justia Law

This case was another in an endless stream of repetitive actions stemming from Randy Holkesvig's 2008 stalking charge to which he pled guilty. Under a negotiated plea agreement, Holkesvig pled guilty to stalking in exchange for dismissal of an additional charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order. In addition to bringing numerous other actions, Holkesvig petitioned for post-conviction relief from the consequences of his pleading guilty to stalking, which was denied by the district court and summarily affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court. Holkesvig sued Gerald VandeWalle, individually and as Chief Justice of the North Dakota Supreme Court, and the State of North Dakota, alleging numerous claims, including, obstruction of justice, defamation, corruption, deceit, fraud, false statements, breach of duty, conspiracy, collusion, racketeering, obstruction, and North Dakota constitutional violations. Holkesvig's ultimate grievance appeared to, at least in part, arise from a misstatement of the procedural facts in "Holkesvig v. North Dakota," where the Supreme Court stated, "Holkesvig's guilty plea was accepted by the district court in 2008 as part of a negotiated plea agreement between his lawyer and the State, which agreement included the State dropping charges that Holkesvig violated a domestic violence protection order." The district court dismissed Holkesvig's lawsuit on the ground it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his claims. Holkesvig moved for relief from the district court's judgment. The district court denied Holkesvig's motion for failure to comply with N.D.R.Ct. 3.2 and N.D.R.Civ. P. 60(b). Holkesvig timely appealed. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court appropriately determined Holkesvig violated an order prohibiting him from filing further lawsuits that arose out of or related to his 2008 stalking charge and charge for violating a disorderly conduct restraining order, it affirmed. View "Holkesvig v. VandeWalle" on Justia Law

Barbara Sokalski appealed after a jury convicted her of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. After review of the arguments she made on appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sokalski's new trial motion because she failed to establish the City's prosecution had presented false testimony and a "false case" against her. View "City of Bismarck v. Sokalski" on Justia Law

Peter Grzeskowiak appealed an order summarily denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Grzeskowiak was charged with physical obstruction of a government function and two counts of mistreating animals after investigation of a man being attacked by dogs on a rural road near Grzeskowiak's farm. In October 2013, Grzeskowiak, with court-appointed counsel, pled guilty to one count of mistreating animals and the other two charges against him were dismissed. In 2015, Grzeskowiak filed a self-represented application for post-conviction relief, generally alleging he had been denied his natural right of liberty and due process by fraud, sham proceedings, false charges, wanton disregard for the truth in issuing a broad warrant, denial of bail, false transcripts, and denial of the right to counsel. Grzeskowiak's request for court-appointed counsel was denied with a statement that he failed to submit proof of his earning ability and that his request for counsel would be reconsidered if he submitted proof within five days. The district court thereafter summarily denied Grzeskowiak's application for post-conviction relief, stating it did not specify the criminal charge and sentence from which relief was sought, did not set forth a concise statement of each ground for relief, and did not specify the relief requested. The court explained Grzeskowiak failed to substantively state a claim for which relief could be granted and his application was meritless on its face. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Grzeskowiak's appellate brief failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, and affirmed the district court order. View "Grzeskowiak v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2013, a confidential informant ("CI") working with the Ward County Narcotics Task Force met with and purchased a substance from Trisha Engstrom. The substance was identified as likely being marijuana. Engstrom left this meeting and went to a residence identified as belonging to defendant Rodney Rogahn, where Engstrom was seen entering the residence. The CI arranged multiple meetings with Engstrom; officers did not see Engstrom leave Rogahn's residence. Prior to a third meeting, officers applied for a daytime search warrant for Rogahn's residence. Officers arrested Engstrom at the third meeting, after which they executed the search warrant of Rogahn's residence at 9:54 p.m. The search lasted until 11:25 p.m. As a result of the search, Rogahn was charged with various drug related crimes. Rogahn moved to suppress evidence obtained in the search, arguing no probable cause existed and the officers executed the warrant at an unreasonable time. Rogahn further requested a "Franks" hearing, arguing the attesting officer made false statements in the affidavit of probable cause and the false statements were necessary for a finding of probable cause. The district court denied Rogahn's motion, concluding probable cause existed and the officers executed the warrant at a reasonable time. The court also denied a Franks hearing, concluding any false statements by the attesting officer were not made knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly with regard to the truth and the allegedly false statements were not necessary for a finding of probable cause. Rogahn appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to various drug crimes, reserving the right to appeal an order denying his motion to suppress certain evidence and his request for a "Franks" hearing. Finding no reversible error after a review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Rogahn's conviction ad the court's decisions. View "North Dakota v. Rogahn" on Justia Law

Austin Van Zomeren appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of at least .08 percent. Before trial, Van Zomeren moved to suppress the blood test, arguing he did not voluntarily consent to take the test. He argued the deputy's reading of the implied consent advisory coerced him to take the test by stating he would be charged with a crime if he refused. The district court rejected his argument and denied the motion to suppress. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting results of the blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Van Zomeren" on Justia Law

Taylor Wilkie appealed an order revoking bail and forfeiting bond after the district court found he violated a condition of the bond order relating to his arrest for a drug crime. Wilkie argued the court erred by requiring him to comply with his probation as a condition of the bond order. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the bond conditions imposed against Wilkie were not erroneous and the court did not err in ordering forfeiture of the bond. View "North Dakota v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Ronald Thompson appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 1991 Thompson was charged with gross sexual imposition and received a court appointed defense lawyer. In 1992 Thompson pled guilty and was sentenced to a ten year prison term with three years suspended. Thompson completed his sentence and the term of probation has expired. In 2012 Thompson applied for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting dismissal of the conviction. Thompson alleged his counsel failed to competently prepare his defense, obtain an independent DNA test, adequately investigate the victim, hire a private investigator and develop a tactical trial strategy. Thompson claimed his attorney's failure to obtain a copy of a DNA report fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced him. To meet the prejudice prong of the "Strickland" test, the defendant bore the heavy burden of establishing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Because the standard used by the district court to analyze the prejudice prong of the Strickland test was an error of law, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. "On remand, the district court must make findings regarding whether a reasonable probability exists that, but for the alleged errors, Thompson would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. If the district court finds a reasonable probability Thompson would have insisted on going to trial, it also must make findings on the first prong of the Strickland test. If the district court finds no reasonable probability Thompson would have insisted on going to trial, post-conviction relief may be denied without examining prong one." View "Thompson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Andrew Gillmore appealed a judgment affirming the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Because the Supreme Court concluded the Department's decision was "in accordance with the law, its findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and support the conclusions of law, and Gillmore's constitutional rights were not violated," it affirmed the judgment. View "Gillmore v. Levi" on Justia Law