Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Matthew Swearingen appealed a district court order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. Concluding the district court provided inadequate findings of fact and should have granted Swearingen's request for a transcript of the post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Swearingen v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Nick Webster appealed his conviction after he conditionally pled guilty to burglary, gross sexual imposition, and interfering with a telephone during an emergency call. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in determining Webster received sufficient Miranda warnings and waived his Miranda rights, it reversed the judgment and remanded to allow Webster to withdraw his conditional guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Webster" on Justia Law

Defendant Daniel Wacht was convicted of murder after a jury found him guilty for the 2011 death of Kurt Johnson. Wacht argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. Finding the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury verdict, the Supreme Court affirmed Wacht's murder conviction. View "North Dakota v. Wacht" on Justia Law

Defendant Lindsay Severinson appeals a district court judgment convicting her of driving under the influence after entering a conditional guilty plea. Severinson argued on appeal the district court erred by admitting an analytical report containing the results of her blood test because the State could not produce the forensic scientist who peer reviewed the analytical report. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Severinson" on Justia Law

Defendant Julian Keller appealed a district court judgment after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence. Concluding the district court properly admitted Keller's chemical blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Keller" on Justia Law

In 2012, Charles Murphy, Sr. and Charles Murphy, Jr. informed law enforcement they had received threatening phone calls from Defendant Nelson Gipp. In the call to Murphy Sr., Gipp accused him and two other people of being child molesters and threatened to kill him. In the call to Murphy Jr., Gipp told him Murphy Sr. was a child molester and that Gipp was going to kill Murphy Sr. Gipp was interviewed by an FBI agent, and he admitted to making the phone calls. During the interview, Gipp alleged that Murphy Sr. had sexually abused him as a child. Gipp was charged with terrorizing. Gipp informed the State that he intended to introduce evidence that Murphy Sr. sexually abused him in the past. The State moved in limine to exclude any evidence of past sexual abuse, and Gipp resisted the motion. The trial court held no hearing on the motion. The district court then granted the motion in limine. Gipp moved to reconsider, arguing N.D.R.Ev. 106 required the statement be entered in its entirety so it could not be taken out of context. The district court did not rule on the motion to reconsider. Gipp entered a conditional guilty plea to the amended charge of menacing. Upon review, the Suprme e Court found no error with the district court's decision and affirmed Gipp's conviction of menacing. View "North Dakota v. Gipp" on Justia Law

Defendant Glen Delorme was charged with two counts of guiding or outfitting without a license in Eddy County after guiding two undercover North Dakota Game and Fish Wardens to multiple hunting sites. The guiding expedition took place both on and off the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Delorme moved to dismiss the charges because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the alleged crime took place on land reserved for the Pembina Band of Chippewa, where his aboriginal rights to hunt, fish, and gather were preserved by an 1863 treaty. The State opposed Delorme's motion, arguing Delorme was charged with guiding or outfitting only on land outside the reservation and subject matter jurisdiction was not in dispute. The district court denied Delorme's motion to dismiss, concluding Delorme failed to show how his offense fell outside of the court's subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Delorme argued the district court erred in denying his motion. Finding no abuse of discretion or error in the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Delorme" on Justia Law

In 2003, Terry Ramsey was found guilty of one count of gross sexual imposition for sexually abusing his half-sister's daughter, "Jane." Ramsey appealed the judgment of conviction, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Ramsey applied for post-conviction relief alleging he was entitled to vacation of his criminal judgment based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. Ramsey alleged a letter he received from Jane recanting her trial testimony was newly discovered evidence entitling him to vacation. The trial court found Terry Ramsey failed to show newly discovered evidence existed and denied his claim for post-conviction relief. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Ramsey's post-conviction relief application based on newly discovered evidence. View "Ramsey v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2011, Defendant Angela Dieterle was arrested for simple assault. The State alleged she willfully caused bodily injury to another person by biting and striking her husband. She argued on appeal the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior bad acts. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Dieterle" on Justia Law

John Holly appealed his conviction on drug charges related to the possession of marijuana and other controlled substances. He argued that the search of his vehicle was not supported by probable cause, and therefore the evidence used to convict him should have been suppressed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the search of Holly's vehicle was lawful; sufficient evidence existed on the record to sustain a conviction of guilt; and that the trial court did not err in finding, sua sponte, Holly guilty of a lesser-included offense. Therefore, the Court affirmed the criminal judgments which were based on the evidence found in Holly's vehicle. With regard to his residence however, the Court concluded the nighttime search warrant was not supported by separate probable cause, and the evidence found there should have been suppressed. The Court reversed those criminal judgments based on the evidence found in his residence. The case was remanded for the trial court to amend its order denying Holly's motion to suppress and the criminal judgments consistent with the Court's findings. View "North Dakota v. Holly" on Justia Law