Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed trial court orders dismissing three separate criminal complaints of endangerment of a child against Defendants Alexis Stegall, Chelsea Hettich, and Kimberlie Lamon. In each case, defendants gave birth to children who tested positive for methamphetamine in their systems. The dispositive issue before the Supreme Court was whether the offense of endangerment of a child applied when a pregnant woman ingests a controlled substance that continues to affect the child postpartum (specifically, the child tests positive for a controlled substance following birth). Under the Court's statutory interpretation of N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-22.2 and its holding in "Geiser," the Court held that a pregnant woman is not criminally liable for endangerment of a child for prenatal conduct that ultimately harms a child born alive. "If we limited the scope of Geiser to only unborn children who died in utero, but held a pregnant woman liable if the child ultimately lives and tests positive for a controlled substance postpartum, we would be criminalizing a nonfatal injury while not criminalizing conduct resulting in a fatal injury. Such an interpretation would create an absurd result. It would criminalize conduct that is not a crime at the time the conduct occurs, is not a crime if the unborn child dies in utero, but is a crime only by virtue of its effect on the child born alive." Accordingly the Court affirmed the trial courts' orders dismissing the criminal complaints. View "North Dakota v. Stegall" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Edward Waslaski appealed a district court order denying his petition for post-conviction relief on charges he pled guilty to 24 years ago. Petitioner pled guilty to 39 counts of burglary under a plea agreement. On appeal, he argued he was prejudiced because his counsel was unable to review a transcript or file and he should be able to use his recitation of fact in the absence of a transcript. He also argued his original guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Waslaski v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Morrow appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision that suspended his driving privileges for one year. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that N.D.C.C. 39-20-04 required an officer to specifically indicate his or her belief that the driver's body contained alcohol on the Report and Notice form, which he says was nowhere on the face of the form. The Department argued that formulating the opinion that the driver's body contained alcohol was a prerequisite to requesting an onsite screening test, and therefore checking "Refused onsite screening test" implied the officer formulated an opinion that the driver's body contained alcohol. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the arresting officer failed to indicate his belief that Plaintiff's body contained alcohol, thereby making the report and notice deficient. The Court reversed the district court's order affirming the administrative suspension of Plaintiff's driving privileges. View "Morrow v. Ziegler" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Bradley Davis appealed a district court order dismissing his motions for leave to depose witnesses and summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application. Because he produced no competent evidence to support his motion to depose Angela Cook, and the evidence he sought to obtain by deposing Graylan Bobo and Angela Cook would not have likely resulted in an acquittal, it was not an abuse of discretion to deny his motions for leave to depose Cook and Bobo. The district court did not err by summarily dismissing his post-conviction relief application because no showing has been made that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Davis v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Petitioner-Appellant Darin Dahl appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He argued his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a bifurcated trial under N.D.C.C. 12.1-04.1-16 and for failing to request the verdict form reflect the possibility of a finding of "not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility." Finding that Petitioner failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability the result of his trial would have been different if his counsel had requested a bifurcated trial, and that his claim to ineffective assistance of counsel was frivolous and without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dahl v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed and Ernest Coppage cross-appealed a district court judgment granting Coppage's application for post-conviction relief, vacating his attempted murder conviction, and ordering a new trial. The State argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court erred in finding Coppage received ineffective assistance of counsel and erred in granting his application for post-conviction relief. Coppage argued the court's decision on his ineffective assistance claim should be affirmed but the court erred by failing to rule on his other claims for post-conviction relief. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court correctly started its analysis of the issues by deciding whether Coppage's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction. However, the court did not properly apply the law to determine whether Coppage was prejudiced and the court failed to decide whether post-conviction counsel was also ineffective. Therefore the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Coppage v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

J.M. appealed an order denying his petition for discharge as a sexually dangerous individual. He contended on appeal that the district court erred in not striking the testimony and report of the State's expert because she testified she had not reviewed his entire file at the State Hospital. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying J.M.'s motion to strike the expert's testimony and report and did not clearly err in deciding J.M. remains a sexually dangerous individual. View "Interest of J.M." on Justia Law

Vincente Chacano appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted murder. Because the trial court did not err in admitting an audio recording of the courtroom scuffle, sufficient evidence existed to sustain the convictions, and the prosecutor's improper statement in closing argument did not reach the level of obvious error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Chacano" on Justia Law

Alois Vetter appealed a district court's judgment entered after he was convicted by jury of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. On appeal, Vetter argued a vehicle is not a dangerous weapon under the plain language of N.D.C.C. 12.1-01-04(6). Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding a vehicle may be considered a dangerous weapon. View "North Dakota v. Vetter" on Justia Law

M.D. appealed a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. M.D. argued the court's finding that he remain a sexually dangerous individual was clearly erroneous and the court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for a continuance. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no abuse of the district court's discretion and affirmed its decision. View "Matter of M.D." on Justia Law