Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Andrew Canfield appealed district court judgments entered upon conviction of four drug related offenses. He also appealed another order denying his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his dormitory room. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that there was a lack of evidence in the record to make meaningful appellate review of the issues presented impossible. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgments of conviction and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Canfield" on Justia Law

Kawo Otis Flah appealed a district court order mandating forfeiture of a 2002 Dodge Intrepid. Because Flah's due process rights were violated when the notice to appear was mailed to his residential address rather than at his in-custody address, the Supreme Court reversed the district court judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. One 2002 Dodge Intrepid Automobile" on Justia Law

Wayne Otto appealed after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a camper. He entered a conditional plea of guilty. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the camper fell within the scope of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement to the warrantless search because law enforcement had probable cause to believe drugs were present in the vehicle. View "North Dakota v. Otto" on Justia Law

Sulejman Bahtiraj appealed a district court's order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He was convicted after pleading guilty to a burglary charge. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in denying Bahtiraj's motion for post-conviction relief. Bahtiraj failed to prove the prejudice necessary to satisfy the second prong of the two-prong "Strickland" test. View "Bahtiraj v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Kevin Moore appealed a district court order summarily dismissing his third postconviction application, arguing his postconviction counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a brief in support of his postconviction application. Because the district court's summary dismissal of Moore's postconviction application was not erroneous, and because an ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel claim could not be established from the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court order. View "Moore v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jason White appealed a district court order summarily affirming a municipal court judgment of conviction for disorderly conduct. White himself did not appear at a pre-trial hearing; his attorney did. Because the district court's summary affirmance was improper under N.D.R.Crim.P. 37(l), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. On its face, the language of the summary affirmance subdivision was clear that it applied only when the defendant does not appear at a trial anew. Thus, summary affirmance is improper at hearings, such as dispositional conferences, which occur before the trial anew. View "City of Fargo v. White" on Justia Law

Gaylord Gene Evans appealed after a jury found him guilty of negligent homicide. Evans argued:(1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) that the district court permitted a lay witness to testify as an expert; (3) and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. Upon careful analysis of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) defendant failed to show that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, permitted no reasonable inference of guilt; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an officer to testify because he did not give expert testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 702 and his opinions were based on his personal experience, perception, and helpful to the jury's determination; (3) and, in light of the entire trial, it was clear the State's innocuous remark did not rise to the level of misconduct resulting in an unfair trial, or deprive Evans of his due process rights. View "North Dakota v. Evans" on Justia Law

Darl Hehn appealed an order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual and from an order delaying a hearing on a subsequent petition for discharge until twelve months had passed since the last discharge hearing. Upon review of the record of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding: (1) the district court did not err in finding that Hehn remained a sexually dangerous individual; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding Hehn was not entitled to another discharge hearing until twelve months had passed since the last discharge hearing. View "Matter of Hehn" on Justia Law

Richard Whitman appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. Whitman argued the district court erred in allowing into evidence statements he made to law enforcement in violation of his Miranda rights, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy. The Supreme Court on its own motion reversed the conspiracy charge brought pursuant to N.D.C.C. 12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) as an uncognizable offense. View "North Dakota v. Whitman" on Justia Law

Travis Samshal appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in excluding evidence about threatening statements the victim allegedly made to Samshal. The case was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Samshal" on Justia Law