Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Todd Zeller appealed his conviction after he conditionally pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture or deliver, and possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture or deliver. Upon review of Zeller's argument on appeal, the Supreme Court held that the search warrant's provision providing for a nighttime search was not supported by probable cause. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Zeller's motion to suppress, and to allow Zeller to withdraw his guilty pleas. View "North Dakota v. Zeller" on Justia Law

Randy Holkesvig appealed district court orders denying him leave of court to file post-judgment motions, denying his motion to vacate or void judgment, and ordering the Grand Forks County Clerk of Court not to accept any further pleadings of any kind from him in this case, other than a notice of appeal. After Holkesvig pleaded guilty to stalking in 2008, Holkesvig engaged in extensive litigation against various parties, including unsuccessfully suing the complaining witness, two prosecutors, and a deputy sheriff, and alleging wrongdoing in the criminal investigation and prosecution. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Holkesvig v. Grove" on Justia Law

Christopher Vandermeer appealed after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition with a person less than fifteen years old. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim to testify concerning her age and date of birth over Vandermeer's foundation and hearsay objections. View "North Dakota v. Vandermeer" on Justia Law

Ricky James Rodriguez appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Rodriguez's argument because the Court concluded the issue on appeal was moot. View "Rodriguez v. N.D. State Penitentiary" on Justia Law

Joseph Daniel Potratz appeals the district court's judgment affirming the administrative hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges. A Burleigh County Deputy Sheriff arrested Potratz for driving under the influence ("DUI"). The administrative hearing officer concluded the deputy had reasonable grounds to believe Potratz had been driving under the influence and Potratz was properly tested after his arrest to determine his alcohol concentration within two hours of driving. Potratz appealed the hearing officer's decision. The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Potratz v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Mark Osier appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 1994, Osier was charged with multiple counts of gross sexual imposition ("GSI") involving a minor under the age of 15 for alleged incidents involving his daughter, S.O. The jury in Osier's first trial deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial. For his second jury trial Osier hired an out-of-state attorney. The jury convicted Osier of six counts of GSI. The Supreme Court reversed Osier's conviction on appeal, holding that the district court had erroneously admitted testimony from Osier's niece that Osier had sexually molested her on several occasions when she was eight or nine years old. Osier was subsequently tried a third time. The jury found Osier not guilty on one count of GSI but guilty on the remaining five counts. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment on appeal, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding the out-of-state attorney had failed to comply with the rape shield statute; that the evidence of additional sexual conduct was not sufficient to explain S.O.'s physical condition; and that the impeachment value of the additional evidence was merely cumulative to abundant other evidence. In 2012, Osier filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his third trial. Osier argued the out-of-state attorney's failure to comply with the rape shield statute, resulting in inadmissibility of the evidence of additional sexual acts between S.O. and her boyfriend, fell below the objective standard of reasonable representation and resulted in prejudice to Osier. After a hearing, the district court determined that Osier failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by the attorney's alleged deficient performance and that the issue was barred by res judicata because the Supreme Court had earlier determined that Osier had failed to demonstrate that any of the proffered rape shield evidence was relevant. The court accordingly denied the application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court agreed and affirmed, concluding Osier failed to establish he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficient performance. View "Osier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Ernest Coppage appealed a district court order that denied him post-conviction relief after a jury convicted him of attempted murder. In 2006, the State charged Coppage with attempted murder. Before trial, Coppage moved the court to prevent the State from introducing evidence of his prior alleged domestic violence. The State did not object, and the court granted Coppage's pretrial motion. The Supreme Court recently held in "Dominguez v. North Dakota," that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) was not a cognizable offense. The Court concluded Coppage failed to establish he was prejudiced by claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. But following a majority of the Court's holding in "North Dakota v. Borner," and "North Dakota v. Whitman," the Court exercised its inherent authority to notice obvious error because Coppage's conviction for attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) was not a cognizable offense. Therefore the Court reversed Coppage's conviction for attempted murder and reinstated the jury's verdict of aggravated assault. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Michael Hamre appealed a district court order affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation ("DOT") order disqualifying his commercial driver's license for one year. Hamre argued: (1) that DOT misapplied the law by considering the administrative suspension of his noncommercial license a "conviction" under N.D.C.C. 39-06.2-10(7) (2011); (2) that N.D.C.C. 39-06.2-10(7) (2011) was void for vagueness; (3) that the one-year suspension of his driving privileges commenced on May 29, 2012, rather than on January 13, 2013; and (4) that he was entitled to attorney fees and costs. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Hamre v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Cory Reis appealed criminal judgments entered after he conditionally pled guilty to controlled substance, burglary and theft of property charges. The Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Reis' motion to suppress because the police officers had probable cause to believe his vehicle contained contraband justifying a warrantless search of the vehicle. View "North Dakota v. Reis" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed the reversal of an administrative hearing officer's decision suspending Tammy Wampler's driving privileges. A Jamestown city police officer received a call regarding an intoxicated driver. The officer arrived on the scene, located the vehicle, and observed it weaving between lanes. The officer initiated his overhead lights, but the vehicle continued to drive for almost half a mile before it came to a stop, and it did so only after the officer turned on his siren. The officer administered three field sobriety tests, and Wampler failed two of them and could not complete the other. Wampler submitted to an on-site chemical screening test, which indicated an alcohol concentration level of at least .08. Wampler was then placed under arrest for Driving Under the Influence. Within two hours of driving, Wampler submitted to an intoxilyzer breath test. The test results showed Wampler's alcohol concentration was 0.159. When the officer completed his certified written report to the director, he wrote "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank. Wampler made a timely request for an administrative hearing with the Department. At that hearing, Wampler raised three arguments, one of which was that the Department lacked the authority to revoke her driving privileges because the law enforcement officer failed to write "by weight" next to the notation "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank of his Report and Notice. The administrative hearing officer rejected Wampler's argument, holding "the failure to write 'by weight' is not jurisdictional." The administrative hearing officer suspended Wampler's driving privileges for 91 days, and Wampler appealed to the district court, raising all three issues. The district court determined North Dakota law required the law enforcement officer to complete a certified written report which indicated that test results showed Wampler had a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or greater by weight, that this was a basic and mandatory provision of the statute under prevailing case law, and that, while the law enforcement officer's Report and Notice included the notation "0.159" in the "Test Results" blank, the omission of the phrase "by weight" stripped the Department of authority to suspend Wampler's driving privileges. The district court determined this was the dispositive issue on appeal and did not address Wampler's other arguments. The district court reversed the decision of the administrative hearing officer and ordered that Wampler's driving privileges be restored. The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of the phrase "by weight" in the "Test Results" portion of a law enforcement officer's certified written report was not necessary to satisfy N.D.C.C. 39-20-03.1. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and reinstated the administrative hearing officer's decision. View "Wampler v. N.D. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law