Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed an order granting Corey Wickham’s postconviction relief application. Wickham was found guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Wickham filed an application for postconviction relief, arguing that his conviction was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to object to a State witness’s comment on Wickham’s invocation of his right to counsel. Because the district judge who presided over Wickham’s trial had retired, an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction application was held in front of a different judge. Testimony was heard from Wickham’s trial counsel at the hearing. The court found that Wickham satisfied the “Strickland” test and granted Wickham’s application for relief. The State argued the district court did not properly apply the Strickland test and its findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were clearly erroneous. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that because the court failed to consider the list of non-exclusive factors outlined in North Dakota v. Wilder (2018 ND 93) in determining the prejudicial effect of trial counsel’s error, the Supreme Court concluded that the postconviction court erred in its application of the law under prong two of the Strickland test. The order granting relief was reversed. View "Wickham v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Duane Landrus, Jr. appealed his conviction by jury for aggravated assault on a correctional officer. In March 2019, Landrus was instructed to go to the behavior intervention unit while in custody at the state penitentiary. Landrus refused to leave his cell and a team was called to remove him. A sergeant at the penitentiary testified that Landrus choked him after he entered Landrus’ cell. Trial took place in June 2021. The district court provided jury instructions listing the essential elements of aggravated assault under the originally-charged subdivision, N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-02(1)(c). Neither Landrus nor the State objected. The jury returned a conviction. Landrus conceded the issues raised on appeal were not argued to the district court, so the appropriate standard of review was obvious error in instructing the jury on the elements of the originally-charged subdivision of N.D.C.C. 12.1-17-02. To this, the North Dakota Supreme Court agreed: “the failure to correct this error would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of criminal proceedings. We reverse and remand for a new trial using jury instructions consistent with the crime charged.” View "North Dakota v. Landrus" on Justia Law

Terri Yellow Hammer appealed an amended criminal judgment awarding restitution in the amount of $193,885.59. Yellow Hammer pled guilty to criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular injury arising out of a crash with another vehicle. Conan Magilke died at the scene, and Angela Magilke sustained significant injuries. On appeal, Yellow Hammer argued the district court erred in ordering restitution for future medical expenses in the amount of $95,000. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Yellow Hammer" on Justia Law

Perry Oshiro II appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct his sentence. On appeal, Oshiro argue the court illegally sentenced him because the court did not give him credit for all the days he previously had served. Because Oshiro was released from prison while this appeal was pending, the North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot. View "North Dakota v. Oshiro" on Justia Law

The State appealed the dismissal of a criminal child neglect case against Antoinette Rodriguez. The State argued Rodriguez had sufficient notice of the charge against her, and the district court erred when it dismissed the amended information against Rodriguez. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the amended information. View "North Dakota v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Randy Houle was convicted by jury of aggravated assault and false information to law enforcement. On appeal, Houle argued the district court erred in improperly instructing the jury regarding circumstantial evidence. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Houle" on Justia Law

Dean Benter was convicted by jury on six counts of possession of certain materials prohibited. Benter argued he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel, and contended the district court failed to question him during trial to determine whether or not he was competent to present his own defense. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Benter’s convictions. View "North Dakota v. Benter" on Justia Law

In November 2019, Josiah Koval pleaded guilty to stalking. Koval entered a conditional guilty plea to violating a protection order. He later appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the charges against him, arguing the underlying post-disposition order prohibiting contact was illegal. Finding that Koval’s arguments were an impermissible collateral attack on the 2019 judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial. View "North Dakota v. Koval" on Justia Law

Richard Goodwin, II appealed a corrected criminal judgment entered after he conditionally pleaded guilty to actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence - refusal. Goodwin was cited in September 2020. Goodwin filed proposed jury instructions prior to the scheduled trial. The proposed instructions included variations of the essential elements of the crime, an instruction indicating whether Goodwin refused the chemical test was a question of fact for the jury, and instructions on defenses related to confusion and mistake. Goodwin made it clear he wanted the North Dakota Supreme Court to advise whether certain instructions were acceptable and asked the district court to deny his instructions on the record to prompt appellate review. Because the Supreme Court found no adverse determination of a pretrial motion for it to consider, the Court declined to address Goodwin’s arguments. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "City of Bismarck v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

Mackenzy Bazile appealed after a jury convicted him of gross sexual imposition. Bazile argued the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Bazile also argued the court erred by failing to make findings on the record regarding Bazile’s motion for mistrial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Bazile" on Justia Law