Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Joshua Cook appealed a criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pled guilty to four drug-related charges and after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment. Because he failed to comply with the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Cook" on Justia Law

In March 2011, the State charged defendant Mitchell Holbach with terrorizing, alleging he had sent letters or filed documents with the court threatening various public officials, law enforcement officers, and court-appointed attorneys involved in his prior convictions. He appealed the trial court order: (1) finding he was not competent to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense in a criminal prosecution for terrorizing; (2) suspending the prosecution against him; (3) ordering him committed to the care and custody of the State Hospital with directions for annual evaluations to determine whether he has attained competency to understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense; and (4) ordering dismissal of the charges if he has not attained competency by March 2016. Defendant argued the district court erred in finding he was not competent to assist in his defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the court did not clearly err in finding defendant was not competent to assist in his defense. Furthermore, the Court also concluded that defendant's pretrial commitment to the State Hospital under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04-08 must comply with the statutory procedures and safeguards of N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1. The Court modified the trial court's order, and as modified, affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Holbach" on Justia Law

Alicia Hart appealed her conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia after entering a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. In a separate case, Paul Timothy Sitte appealed his conviction possession of hashish, possession of methamphetamine drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana drug paraphernalia after also entering a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Upon review of these appeals, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments and remanded the cases to allow Hart and Sitte to withdraw their guilty pleas and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Hart" on Justia Law

In prosecutions underlying this appeal, Casey Phillips applied for indigent defense services, and the district court appointed counsel to represent him. Phillips pled guilty to charges of violating a domestic violence protection order, stalking, terrorizing, and criminal trespass. He did not directly appeal the convictions. Phillips applied for post-conviction relief in January 2013, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective, his convictions were obtained as a result of a coerced confession and unlawfully induced guilty plea, and evidence not previously presented required the convictions be vacated. Phillips again applied for indigent defense counsel, and an attorney was assigned to represent him. Following a hearing, the district court dismissed Phillips's application for post-conviction relief, concluding, "For the reasons stated on the record, the Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is hereby dismissed." Phillips appealed the dismissal of his petition. Concluding the district court abused its discretion in denying Phillips's request for a transcript of the post-conviction hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Phillips v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Michael Lee Broadwell was found guilty of burglary, terrorizing, making a false report, giving false information or report to law enforcement officers, simple assault, and disorderly conduct. He appealed, but the appeal was dismissed pursuant to a motion by Broadwell's attorney. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Broadwell argued the district court erred in denying his application for postconviction relief. Because Broadwell did not establish that he was prejudiced by the conduct which he alleged constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Broadwell v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a trial court's order granting Matthew Nguyen's motion to suppress evidence. Nguyen was prosecuted for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and drug paraphernalia. The Supreme Court held that law enforcement's use of a drug-sniffing dog in a secure apartment hallway did not violate Nguyen's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

Tydise Peltier appealed an amended criminal judgment of conviction and a district court judgment dismissing in part his application for post-conviction relief and amending the criminal judgment and sentence in his case. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err when it amended the judgment of conviction and resentenced Peltier. Furthermore, the Court held that Peltier's probationary sentence on the failure-to-register charge was appropriately categorized as mandatory. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court judgments. View "Peltier v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Billy Joe Kinsella appealed a district court judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2010, a jury convicted Kinsella of sexually assaulting his sixteen-year-old stepdaughter, S.B. Evidence at the trial included testimony from the investigating officer, the sexual assault nurse examiner ("SANE"), North Dakota State Crime Laboratory analysts, and DNA evidence taken from bed sheets located in the Kinsella residence. One of the crime laboratory analysts testified the bed sheet tested positive for semen and that DNA analysis revealed the semen matched Kinsella's DNA profile. S.B. testified she did not remember the sexual assault or the sexual assault examination conducted by the SANE nurse. Kinsella appealed his conviction to this Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. In his application for post-conviction relief, Kinsella argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding that Kinsella failed to demonstrate he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his trial attorney, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief. View "Kinsella v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A series of burglaries occurred over several months in Bismarck involving more than $65,000 in stolen property and property damage. D.O. is a juvenile thought to be involved with the crimes. While investigating D.O.'s involvement, Detective Matthew Fullerton performed a probation search of D.O.'s residence, obtained information from a tipster and a confidential informant, searched publicly available information on D.O.'s Facebook page and performed a "cell tower dump" showing cell phone activity in the area of the burglaries at the time they occurred. D.O. appealed the juvenile court's order granting the State's motion to transfer D.O.'s case to the district court and denying D.O.'s suppression motion. D.O. argued law enforcement offered false or misleading testimony in support of the search warrant, that insufficient probable cause existed to justify the search warrant's issuance, that the juvenile court relied on out-of-court statements in violation of his statutory right to confrontation and that his case was inappropriately transferred to the district court. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of D.O." on Justia Law

Esteban Dominguez appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. Dominguez argued his attempted murder conviction as illegal because N.D.C.C. 12.1-16-01(1)(b) could not be the underlying charge for an attempt offense. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that attempted murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) is not a cognizable offense, because attempt requires an intent to complete the commission of the underlying crime and a majority of the Court has held that murder under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life results in an unintentional death. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded. View "Dominguez v. North Dakota" on Justia Law