Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Gregorio Montano appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of possessing marijuana with the intent to deliver, and for delivery of marijuana. Defendant argued on appeal that the Supreme Court should reverse his convictions and remand his case for further proceedings because his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial were violated when the district court failed to impose sanctions after the prosecutor made an inappropriate racial comment during rebuttal argument, and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Finding his argument without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions.

Plaintiff-Appellant Christopher Osaba appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the administrative revocation of his driving privileges for one year following his arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded testimony was properly admitted to establish probable cause for Plaintiff's arrest, and affirmed the district court's decision.

Defendant-Appellant Macintosh Doll appealed a district court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. On appeal, Defendant argued: (1) he did not receive a fair trial because he was tried with a codefendant, (2) he was unfairly prejudiced by the testimony of a sexual assault nurse, (3) the district court erred by denying his motion for mistrial due to a sequestration order violation and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court found the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction, and affirmed the district court.

Petitioner-Appellant Spence Koenig appealed a district court's judgment that affirmed the Department of Transportation's decision to suspend his driving privileges for ninety-one days. Petitioner was pulled over by a state trooper for speeding and for expired tabs. Petitioner agreed to perform a field sobriety test and failed it. The trooper told Petitioner's girlfriend that Petitioner would be released when someone over eighteen years old came to pick Petitioner up. Petitioner argued he was denied an opportunity to obtain an independent sobriety test after he made sufficient arrangements for one because he was held in custody for over three hours with no attempt or offer to transport him to the hospital for the additional test. Petitioner asserted that "the responsibility of securing [his] right to an independent blood test became that of law enforcement holding him in custody[,]" when it became apparent his ride was not coming. Finding that the officers did not have a duty to transport Petitioner to the hospital to obtain the independent test, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department's decision.

As a condition of bail, the district court required Defendant Anna Hayes to consent to a warrantless search at any time of her person, vehicle, and residence. Concluding the bail condition was invalid under N.D.R.Crim.P. 46(a)(3), the Supreme Court reversed her convictions of four drug-related charges resulting from the bail-condition search. The Court affirmed her convictions of two prior unaffected charges.

Defendant Jose Pena Garcia appealed his conviction by jury of actual physical control. Defendant argued he was denied due process because the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor read case law to the jury during closing arguments. Officers testified at trial that while on patrol, they found Defendant "passed out and laying face down" on the driver's seat of his pickup truck with his legs outside the vehicle, with the motor still running. The officers testified that they shut off the engine, but neither could recall what happened to the vehicle's keys. Defendant presented testimony from his girlfriend that she drove him to his apartment earlier that evening, and that she left him in the vehicle because he fell asleep, and that she had the vehicle's keys inside the residence. The State presented evidence Defendant had a blood alcohol level of .198 percent within two hours of the officers finding him in the vehicle. After considering the State's comments within the context of the entire trial and the trial court's curative instruction to the jury, the Supreme Court concluded the prosecution's comments, if improper, did not result in an unfair trial and did not deprive Defendant of due process.

Defendant Steven Evans appealed from a Kidder County district court order denying his motion to amend judgment, and from a Burleigh County district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order that denied his motion to amend judgment. Defendant was sentenced in Kidder County to three years' imprisonment on charges of burglary and theft of property. He had criminal charges related to the same incident pending in Burleigh County at that time. At sentencing, the Kidder County State's Attorney recommended the Kidder County sentences run concurrently to the sentences Defendant would ultimately receive in Burleigh County. The Kidder County district court informed Defendant several times it could not bind the Burleigh County district court to run its sentences concurrently to the Kidder County sentences, and Defendant stated he understood. The Kidder County criminal judgment ordered Defendant's sentences "shall run concurrently and concurrently with [the] Burleigh County Case[s]." Defendant was subsequently sentenced in Burleigh County to five years' imprisonment with all but 180 days suspended on the charge of fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer, and 180 days' imprisonment on the charge of possession of marijuana by a driver. The Burleigh County criminal judgment ordered the sentences to run concurrently to each other but consecutively to Defendant's Kidder County sentences. Defendant filed motions to amend judgment in both counties and a motion to reconsider in Burleigh County, all of which were denied. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Kidder County order denying Defendant's motion to amend judgment, but remanded and directed the Kidder County district court to correct its criminal judgment by deleting the provision that ordered the Kidder County sentences to run concurrently to the Burleigh County sentences.

The City of Dickinson appealed a district court order that granted Defendant Lola Hewson's motion to suppress evidence obtained after a law enforcement officer stopped her vehicle. In August 2010, Rodney Hewson called 911 sometime after midnight to report that his wife, Lola Hewson, had left their residence after he had tried to prevent her from leaving. Rodney Hewson told the dispatcher that Defendant had been drinking "big time," was intoxicated, and had nearly hit him with her vehicle as she backed up to leave. Rodney Hewson told the dispatcher that they had better catch her before she kills herself or someone else. On the way to Rodney Hewson's residence, a City police officer saw a red Oldsmobile as described by Rodney Hewson to the emergency dispatcher. The officer proceeded to follow the vehicle until he was close enough to read the license plate. The officer relayed the plate number to dispatch and received information that the vehicle was registered to a "Lola" with a different last name, but with the same address provided by dispatch. The officer then initiated a traffic stop. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Defendant's vehicle, and the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Johnathan Vondal appealed criminal judgments entered against him after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and continuous sexual abuse of a child. Defendant argued on appeal that it was obvious error to prosecute him as an adult for acts committed before he was fourteen years old, that his due process rights were violated by multiple instances of prosecutorial misconduct, that the district court abused its discretion and violated his confrontation rights by prohibiting testimony about the victim's state of mind and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. After careful consideration of the applicable legal authority and the trial court record, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. The Court affirmed Defendant's convictions.

The State appealed a district court order granting Defendant Michael Woodrow's motion to dismiss five counts of gross sexual imposition, class A felonies, based on a lack of jurisdiction. Because the Supreme Court concluded the district court had jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. 27-20-34(8), the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.