Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in North Dakota Supreme Court

by
In October 2013, a jury found Sean Kovalevich guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition and one count of corruption of a minor. The conviction resulted from sexual acts occurring in 2012 at the Canad Inn in Grand Forks, North Dakota. Kovalevich was sentenced to 30 years in prison and 10 years of supervised probation. Kovalevich appealed and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Arguing on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Kovalevich argued the district court erred in summarily dismissing: (1) a motion for relief from an order denying an application for post-conviction relief; and (2) an application for post-conviction relief on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The court concluded Kovalevich could have raised the arguments presented in his motion and application in earlier proceedings. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Kovalevich v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

by
Jessica Nelson appealed after she was sentenced to three years in jail for possession with intent to manufacture or deliver methamphetamine. She argued on appeal the district court erred in denying her request to withdraw her guilty plea, and erred by considering a prior dismissed deferred imposition of sentence when imposing the mandatory minimum sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that a completed deferred imposition of sentence that resulted in the dismissal of charges may not be used to enhance a sentence unless the State sufficiently pleads and proves the underlying case. The Court reversed judgment and remanded for resentencing. View "North Dakota v. Nelson" on Justia Law

by
Bradley Joe Morales appealed a district court criminal judgment following a jury verdict finding him guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend. Morales argued a motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, and parts of his trial were closed to the public without the pre-closure analysis required by Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984), thus violating his right to a public trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The North Dakota Supreme Court concurred and reversed judgment. The matter was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Morales" on Justia Law

by
Amanda Dockter appealed an order revoking her probation. Dockter was initially charged with corruption or solicitation of a minor in Eddy County, North Dakota. In November 2017, the State amended the charge against Dockter to include abuse or neglect of a child, a class C felony. On November 9, 2017, Dockter pled guilty in Eddy County to the child neglect charge and was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a term of one year and one day with 336 days suspended and placed on supervised probation for a period of five years. Dockter was ordered to report to the Stutsman County Correctional Facility for the period of confinement on January 1, 2018. She finished serving her 30-day jail sentence on the child neglect charge on January 28, 2018. In January 2019, Dockter’s probation officer petitioned to revoke her probation, alleging she had tested positive for methamphetamine on November 30 and December 22, 2017, and was convicted of five other criminal charges in Stutsman County on January 14, 2019, including child neglect and felon in possession of a firearm. At a February 14, 2019 probation revocation hearing, Dockter admitted she engaged in the conduct alleged in the petition to revoke and argued about the disposition. The district court found she violated the conditions of her probation. The court issued an order revoking her probation and committing her to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for one year and one day with credit of 31 days for time served with supervised probation for five years. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order and remanded to the court to correct the period of supervised probation from five years to three years as required by N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-06.1(2). View "North Dakota v. Dockter" on Justia Law

by
Ross Thomas appealed after a jury found him guilty of terrorizing, a class C felony. Trial started on March 28, 2018. The following day, the State and defendant rested, and the case was submitted to the jury. At the end of the day, the jury sent a note to the court stating they had reached a decision on three counts, were hung on one count, and no further progress would be made. The court admonished the jury and ordered them to return on the following Monday, April 2, after a holiday weekend, to continue deliberations on the remaining count. On April 2, 2018, the jury reconvened to continue its deliberations. Before the jury reconvened, however, Thomas’s counsel raised specific allegations to the district court that Thomas had overheard non-jurors discussing the content of jury deliberations and juror decisions in a public setting in town. The court did not conduct a hearing on Thomas’s allegations at that time but stated it would “let [Thomas] challenge any verdict made in a subsequent motion after there’s notice and opportunity for both parties to be prepared.” After further deliberation, the jury subsequently returned not-guilty verdicts on the aggravated assault and reckless endangerment charges and returned a guilty verdict on the terrorizing charge. The jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on the felonious restraint charge, and the court declared a mistrial on that charge. The district court sentenced Thomas on the terrorizing charge, and a criminal judgment was entered.The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Thomas a hearing on alleged juror communications with non-jurors, which were discovered and brought to the court’s attention while the jury was deliberating and were alleged to be related to matters on which the jury had deliberated and the jury’s decisions. The matter was remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Thomas" on Justia Law

by
Spencer Norton appealed a district court’s criminal judgment entered following a jury verdict finding him guilty of terrorizing. In November 2017, Norton was detained after being charged with arson. While detained, Norton communicated with his girlfriend through phone conversations and video visits. Norton was aware that both the video visits and the phone conversations were being recorded by law enforcement. During the phone conversations and the video visits, Norton made multiple threatening statements directed toward law enforcement and other individuals associated with his arson case. Norton also made threats that referenced the family members of law enforcement. Norton was charged with terrorizing as the result of his threats. Norton contended the offense of terrorizing required threats directed toward identified individuals and the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Norton" on Justia Law

by
Nicholas Blaskowski appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence under N.D.C.C. 39-08- 01(1)(a). Blaskowski argued the district court erred in admitting the results of his chemical breath test into evidence because the State failed to establish the chemical breath test was fairly administered under N.D.C.C. 39-20- 07 because the State did not offer proof the device used to perform the chemical breath test was installed by a field inspector prior to its use. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the approved method for conducting the chemical test at issue in this case required the device be installed by a field inspector. Absent evidence of installation of the device by a field inspector, or expert testimony establishing the test was fairly administered, the test result was not admissible. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion when it admitted the test result. View "North Dakota v. Blaskowski" on Justia Law

by
Dustin Hendrickson appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence. Hendrickson argued the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because officers did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.. View "North Dakota v. Hendrickson" on Justia Law

by
Lekemia D’Andre Caster appealed from a district court order summarily denying his application for post-conviction relief. On May 6, 2015, Caster pleaded guilty to two counts of child neglect or abuse and was sentenced to eighteen months’ probation. The State filed a petition for revocation in June 2016. On August 1, 2016, Caster applied for indigent defense services but was denied due to his income. The letter notifying Caster of this denial was returned undeliverable on August 12, 2016. A revocation hearing held on September 13, 2016, resulted in Caster’s probation being revoked and he received an eighteen month prison sentence. Caster appealed the revocation judgment which was summarily affirmed by the North Dakota Supreme Court. On October 8, 2018, Caster filed an application for post-conviction relief alleging newly discovered evidence and an unlawful sentence, which was denied. The Supreme Court concluded the post-conviction relief court failed to explain its reasoning in its order. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Caster v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

by
Dennis Shipton appealed district court orders summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and his motion to reconsider. In April 1993, Shipton pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Pursuant to N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 19, the case files were destroyed in 2007. Shipton filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis on October 22, 2018, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to seek dismissal on the grounds of double jeopardy. Shipton did not allege newly discovered evidence. In its order, the district court noted that North Dakota did not recognize a writ of error coram nobis and instead treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief. After applying those standards, the court summarily dismissed Shipton’s petition as untimely and frivolous. Shipton filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the State prejudiced him by prematurely destroying records from his cases. The court denied Shipton’s motion. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Shipton" on Justia Law