Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Leron Howard appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of murder and criminal conspiracy. Howard argued the district court erred in directing a multi-county jury panel, and in denying his amended motion for change of venue. He also argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finding no error and that the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support his conviction, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Howard" on Justia Law

Korsiba Arot was charged in district court with three counts of gross sexual imposition for incidents that occurred in the summer of 2011, the latest of which occurred in August, 2011. Arot moved to dismiss the criminal charges arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because Arot was not eighteen at the time of the incidents. The district court found the State failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that Arot was eighteen at the time of the incidents. The charges were dismissed. The State appealed the dismissal of charges. Finding no error in the dismissal, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Arot" on Justia Law

Larry Rubey appealed a district court order limiting the presentation of evidence at his discharge hearing and from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. Rubey argued the district court erred in restricting the evidence and finding he remained a sexually dangerous individual. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order that Rubey remained a sexually dangerous individual and deny Rubey's requested relief on the evidentiary limitation. View "Matter of Rubey" on Justia Law

Nicholas Baatz appealed an order that denied his second application for post-conviction relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court to address the merits of Baatz's claims of denial of the right to counsel and of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because, under the law-of-the-case doctrine (from "North Dakota v. Baatz" (806 N.W.2d 438)), Baatz was allowed to raise these issues in a second post-conviction proceeding. View "Baatz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jeremy Johnson appealed a district court order that committed him to the custody of the Department of Human Services as a sexually dangerous individual. Johnson argued the district court clearly erred by finding he had a congenital or acquired disorder manifested as a sexual disorder or dysfunction. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Interest of Johnson" on Justia Law

Nelson Whitetail, Sr. appealed an order that found he was a sexually dangerous individual and civilly committed him to the care, custody and control of the Department of Human Services. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in finding the State established by clear and convincing evidence that Whitetail was a sexually dangerous individual. View "Interest of Whitetail" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Cody Borner appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of two counts of conspiracy to commit murder. He argued the criminal information failed to charge him with the purported offense of conspiracy to commit murder. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed and held that the charge of conspiracy to commit murder under N.D.C.C. sections 12.1-06-04 and 12.1-16-01(1)(b) are not cognizable offenses. Accordingly, the Court reverse the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Borner" on Justia Law

Ryan Zueger and William Nickel appealed their convictions after the district court denied their motions to suppress evidence and a jury found them guilty of conspiracy to deliver controlled synthetic cannabinoids. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying the motions to suppress, and reversed the convictions. View "North Dakota v. Nickel" on Justia Law

Petitioner Glen YellowBird appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the North Dakota Department of Transportation's revocation of his driving privileges for one year. Because the Supreme Court concluded the plain language of N.D.C.C. 39-20-14 did not require the officer requesting the on-site screening test to be certified to administer the test, it affirmed the district court judgment affirming the Department's revocation of YellowBird's driving privileges. View "Yellowbird v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Defendant Scott Wilson was charged with four counts of issuing a check with insufficient funds or credit in 2010. He requested court-appointed counsel, which the district court denied, finding he was not indigent. A trial was set in early 2011, but Wilson later requested a change of plea, and the trial was rescheduled. Before the jury trial began, Wilson told the court he had tried to retain an attorney three weeks earlier, calling "five or six of them," but each declined. Wilson provided no evidence other than his statement that he had made efforts to retain an attorney. A jury found Wilson guilty of all counts of issuing checks without sufficient funds. The district court sentenced him to two consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment with two years suspended and two consecutive terms of 30 days in jail with 20 days suspended and required he pay restitution. Wilson was not advised of his right to appeal at the time of sentencing. Wilson appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal as untimely. Petitioning pro se, Wilson petitioned for post-conviction relief, alleging he should have been appointed counsel. Wilson again requested court-appointed counsel, which this time the district court granted. Through his court-appointed counsel, Wilson filed a supplement to his application, alleging the district court erred in denying him counsel at all stages of the proceeding in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He also argued that the district court had a duty to inform him of his right to appeal and his sentence was cruel and unusual. The district court denied Wilson's application for post-conviction relief. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Wilson argued he was prejudiced because the trial court failed to notify him of his right to appeal and the district court erred in concluding he waived his right to counsel. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court's finding that Wilson waived his right to counsel was supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous. Wilson's failure to secure counsel after being advised of the right and given a reasonable opportunity to do so constituted his waiver of that right. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Wilson's request for court-appointed counsel. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying Wilson's application for post-conviction relief. View "Wilson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law