Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

n 2001, Defendant Mark Palmer was convicted of four counts of gross sexual imposition. Defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In 2011, Defendant appealed a district court order that denied his N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from an order that denied his application for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Palmer's motion. View "Palmer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Tresenriter appealed criminal judgments entered after a jury verdict found him guilty of 22 counts of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, two counts of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, one count of terrorizing, one count of child endangerment, and one count of simple assault. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Tresenriter failed to properly preserve issues for appeal when he did not timely object to admission of results of a buccal swab DNA test and did not move to consolidate the multiple conspiracy charges into a single conspiracy count. View "North Dakota v. Tresenriter" on Justia Law

Defendant Esteban Dominguez was charged with attempted murder and terrorizing after he allegedly threatened David Nelson with a .22 caliber rifle. When Nelson began to run away, Dominguez allegedly shot at Nelson four times. Defendant appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict and request a new trial after he was found guilty of attempted murder and terrorizing. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated the order and dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

Daniel Herzig appealed a jury verdict which found him guilty of criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor. Under "North Dakota v. Meyer," (361 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 1985)), the Supreme Court concluded this dispute was ill-suited for a criminal action and instead should have been resolved in a civil action because there existed a legitimate dispute as to whether the area upon which Mr. Herzig was alleged to have trespassed was a public road by prescription under N.D.C.C. 24-07-01. Under "Meyer," the Court reversed the judgment and remand to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "North Dakota v. Herzig" on Justia Law

Christopher Haag appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief from criminal convictions entered after he pled guilty to drug-related charges involving JWH-018 1-Pentyl-3 (1-naphthoyl) indole ("JWH-018"). Haag was charged with possession of a controlled substance, with intent to deliver to another and with possession of drug paraphernalia for using a controlled substance for acts alleged to have occurred on November 12, 2010. JWH-018 has been identified as a synthetic cannabinoid, and the parties referred to it as "Spark." Haag pled guilty to the charges in May 2011. In November 2011, Haag petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming JWH-018 was not a prohibited controlled substance when he committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint. The State resisted Haag's petition and moved for summary disposition, arguing the North Dakota Board of Pharmacy's final rule delineating JWH-018 as a prohibited controlled substance was in effect when Haag committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint on November 12, 2010. We affirm, concluding JWH-018 was a prohibited controlled substance when Haag committed the acts alleged in the criminal complaint in November 2010. View "Haag v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Clinton Gardner appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a North Dakota Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision suspending his driving privileges for one year. Gardner argued that because he wasn't given the implied consent advisory for the request for chemical testing, his conduct could not be deemed a refusal. He also argued he consented to the test when he said "yeah, I'll take the test," but was never given the opportunity to take the test. The administrative officer found the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe Gardner was in actual physical control of a vehicle, and had effectively refused the blood test by his conduct despite stating he would take the test. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the hearing officer's decision was supported by the weight of the evidence in the record, and was entitled to deference. View "Gardner v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Gene Kirkpatrick appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit burglary. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court concluded his statement to law enforcement was voluntary and properly used against him, the evidence was sufficient to sustain his conspiracy to commit burglary conviction, and the trial court did not err in issuing jury instructions. View "North Dakota v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant William Scott Gagnon III appealed a judgment entered on a conditional plea of guilty to manufacturing marijuana. He reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered in his residence. Defendant argued the evidence was unconstitutionally seized during an illegal warrantless search of his home. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the search was indeed illegal, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case to allow Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Gagnon" on Justia Law

Gerald Middleton appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual abuse of a child and corruption of a minor. Middleton argued the district court erred in denying his motion to release the victim's medical records and the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Middleton failed to properly preserve the issues he raised on appeal.

Bryen Birkholz appealed a judgment ordering him to forfeit $44,140 in currency seized during a search of his residence and an order denying his motion for a new trial. In August 2010, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant for Birkholz's residence and found eleven growing marijuana plants, a hydration system for the plants, three bags containing various amounts of marijuana, several empty bags, drug paraphernalia, and $44,140 in currency in a safe in a desk near the marijuana. In May 2011, Birkholz pled guilty to manufacture of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Birkholz argued the district court erred in applying the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to currency he claimed was seized under the authority of N.D.C.C. 29-31.1-03. He also claimed there was insufficient evidence of a transaction to justify a forfeiture of the currency under N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3(1)(d) and the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded Birkholz did not raise an issue in the district court about the applicability of the presumptions in N.D.C.C. 19-03.1-23.3 to this case and could not raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The Court also concluded the court's findings supporting forfeiture were not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Birkholz's motion for a new trial.