Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Jeremy Ballard appealed a district court judgment after he conditionally pled guilty to drug charges, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued the district court should have suppressed evidence from his residence because the suspicionless probationary search violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. After review, the Supreme Court reversed because the suspicionless search of an unsupervised probationer's home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. View "North Dakota v. Ballard" on Justia Law

The State charged Cody Atkins with a class AA felony for gross sexual imposition for acts that allegedly occurred in November 2013. At the probable cause hearing following Atkins' initial appearance, the State moved to amend its original information to a class A felony and amending the time of the alleged offense to September 2013. Atkins, represented by counsel at the probable cause hearing, did not object to the State's motion, and the district court allowed the State to amend its original information. The court then held an arraignment hearing, at which Atkins pled not guilty. At the pre-trial conference, Atkins informed the court he intended to change his plea. The court informed Atkins of his right to remain silent, his right to an attorney, and also informed him of the maximum and minimum penalties allowed by law, his right to a presumption of innocence, and his right to have the State prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, among other rights. Atkins told the court he understood these rights. The court also informed Atkins it was not bound to accept any sentencing recommendations and could impose any sentence allowed by law. Atkins said he understood. The court told Atkins he would be unable to withdraw his guilty plea if it was accepted by the court. Atkins responded he understood. Atkins entered an open guilty plea. The court inquired whether anyone made promises to Atkins in exchange for the plea or if the plea was the product of threat, coercion, or intimidation. Atkins responded no. The court accepted Atkins' guilty plea, finding an adequate factual basis for the plea existed and Atkins gave the guilty plea voluntarily. Atkins appealed the judgment after pleading to gross sexual imposition, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court failed to substantially comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 11, thereby creating a manifest injustice warranting a withdrawal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Atkins" on Justia Law

Mark Matuska, registered owner of a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee, appealed a district court's amended judgment in a civil forfeiture action. Matuska was arrested during a controlled narcotics buy. The State filed a complaint seeking to forfeit the vehicle used in the offense and $618 found in the vehicle and on Matuska during his arrest. Matuska answered, arguing that the currency law enforcement officers seized was not used as "buy money" and not subject to forfeiture. On July 15, 2015, without a notice or motion, the State filed proposed amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, order for judgment, and judgment to include the vehicle identification number ("VIN"). The proposed order also included forfeiture of the contents of the vehicle. On July 17, 2015, the district court entered its amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment to include the VIN and forfeiture of the contents of the vehicle, and entered its amended judgment to include the VIN. After the amended judgment was entered, Matuska, by letter, demanded that his personal property seized within the vehicle be returned, stating in further correspondence he intended to appeal. Matuska appealed the district court's amended judgment. The Supreme Court, after review, concluded the district court abused its discretion because it misapplied the law by not following the procedural requirements for correcting a judgment or an order under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Therefore, the Court vacated the amended order for judgment and amended judgment. Matuska timely appealed from the initial judgment forfeiting the vehicle and currency. On February 13, 2015, on Matuska's motion, the Supreme Court voluntarily dismissed his appeal. Therefore, additional challenges to the forfeiture of the vehicle and currency were barred by res judicata. View "North Dakota v. 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee" on Justia Law

During a patrol, a Jamestown police officer encountered a vehicle parked along a residential street with its door ajar. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer discovered appellee Casey Washburn asleep in the driver's seat. After waking Washburn, the officer detected an alcoholic odor that became stronger as the officer conversed with Washburn. The officer asked Washburn to perform field sobriety testing, which he refused. The officer then arrested Washburn on suspicion of being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. At the station, Washburn further refused the chemical test. A hearing officer concluded probable cause existed to believe Washburn was in actual physical control of the vehicle while intoxicated. In considering whether Washburn received an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel after his purported request to do so, the hearing officer found no evidence that Washburn wanted to speak to an attorney. "The purpose of his request to speak to an attorney [was] vague." Based upon this information, the hearing officer concluded there was no violation of Washburn's qualified statutory right to speak with counsel. The Department of Transportation thereafter revoked Washburn's driving privileges. On appeal, Washburn appealed the hearing officer's conclusion. The district court reversed the Department's revocation, finding that Washburn's statutory request for counsel was violated. Finding no error with this decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Washburn v. Levi" on Justia Law

Adrian Williams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Williams argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and his request for a complete transcript of the suppression hearing. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in denying his transcript request, reversed and remanded so that Williams could obtain a transcript of the hearing and properly pursue his appeal. View "North Dakota v. Williams" on Justia Law

In 2013, George Nelson and his wife were charged with theft of property and contracting without a license after the couple contracted with numerous individuals to construct buildings that were never completed. Nelson pled guilty to the charges. Prior to the February 2015 restitution hearing, Nelson requested it be continued to give him time to collect evidence to challenge the restitution amount and to hire alternate counsel. The court refused to continue the entire hearing and informed Nelson it would go forward with at least the State's witnesses. The court, however, told Nelson it would not issue a ruling and he would be given 60 days to hire alternate counsel, gather rebuttal evidence, and request a subsequent hearing. In March 2015, Nelson requested a subsequent restitution hearing, which was scheduled for May 2015. Nelson again requested a continuance because he had been released from prison in North Dakota and had been extradited to Nebraska. The court granted the request, and the hearing was rescheduled for July 15, 2015. On July 2, the court, without having conducted the rescheduled hearing, ordered restitution in the amount of $69,658 jointly and severally by Nelson and his wife. Nelson appealed. On appeal, Nelson argued the district court violated the law and denied him due process by failing to hold the rescheduled restitution hearing to allow him to present evidence to rebut the restitution amount. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed the district court's order, and remanded to allow Nelson an opportunity to present evidence on the restitution. View "North Dakota v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Marcus Chatman appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of heroin with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine, and possession of marijuana by a driver. Chatman argued the district court should have suppressed evidence because illegally seized evidence was used to establish probable cause for a search warrant. He also argued his Sixth Amendment confrontation and compulsory process rights were violated. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Chatman" on Justia Law

James Leno appealed a Department of Transportation decision to suspend his driving privileges for 91 days. Because the Supreme Court concluded the arresting officer's testimony sufficiently established he performed the required steps listed on the specimen submitter's checklist and Leno received a fair and impartial hearing, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "Leno v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

A jury found Jason Hanson guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. He appealed the judgment and the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Jamestown v. Hanson" on Justia Law

Andrew Olsen appealed a trial court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that as a matter of law, the failure of Olsen's attorney to raise an issue of first impression on an unsettled question of law in North Dakota did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore the Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Olsen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law