Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Rodney Friesz appealed a district court’s order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Friesz was convicted of manslaughter and arson following a jury trial in February 2016. In 2017, Friesz appealed his convictions based on insufficiency of the evidence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. In May 2018, Friesz filed his first application for post-conviction relief. The application was denied and affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court. In May 2020, Friesz filed a second application for post-conviction relief alleging: ineffective assistance of trial counsel; denial of effective assistance of counsel on his post-conviction appeal with appellate counsel; insufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction; denial of his fourth amendment rights regarding the warrantless search of the residence, the seizure of a firearm, and the failure of the court to grant his motion to suppress; and failure to disclose DNA evidence by the prosecution. The district court dismissed the second application for post-conviction relief. In March 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the court’s denial and remanded the case to allow Friesz the 14 days to respond to the State’s motion for summary dismissal. On remand, Friesz was given additional time, well over 30 days, to respond. The district court again dismissed the second application for post-conviction relief, finding: Friesz’s application was filed well beyond the two-year statute of limitations, and neither his application nor his response to the State’s motion identified any competent evidence to support his allegation that the State failed to disclose DNA evidence. The court found the hearsay statement contained in his response was not competent evidence. Further, the court reasoned it could not determine that the newly discovered DNA evidence, when reviewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would establish that Friesz did not engage in the criminal conduct, “especially given the fact that the jury was presented with an interview in which [Friesz] confessed to the crimes.” Appealing the district court's second dismissal, Friesz argued the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Finding no reversible error in this second dismissal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Friesz v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Charles Mayland appealed his conviction for being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence. Mayland entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He argued he was read the implied consent advisory before being arrested in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(2), and the statutory remedy for the violation was the exclusion of evidence. Because the statutory exclusion of evidence provided within N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3)(b) was limited to the proof of the refusal to submit to testing in administrative proceedings, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Mayland" on Justia Law

Emile Dargbeh appealed after he was convicted by jury on two counts of forgery. In March and April 2020, Dargbeh cashed three forged checks from Dacotah Paper Company. Each check was written out to Emile Dargbeh in an amount ranging from $1,900 to $2,180. The State obtained video showing Dargbeh cashing two of the three checks. The State charged Dargbeh with one count of forgery for each check recorded on video but did not include a third count for the third check not recorded on video. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence and testimony in relation to the third, uncharged check, and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. View "North Dakota v. Dargbeh" on Justia Law

Brent Castleman was convicted by jury of child abuse. At trial, the mother testified she was in her daughter’s bedroom when Castleman entered the room, screamed at her, held her by the neck, and pushed her face into a pillow. Their daughter was on the bed with the mother during the incident. The mother testified her daughter was “really scared,” “shaking,” and “cr[ied] a little bit.” The mother recorded audio of the incident using her phone, which was hidden under a pillow. The recording was played for the jury. The recording includes Castleman threatening, arguing with, and yelling at his wife. The daughter can be heard crying for a few seconds during the recording. Castleman argued on appeal there was insufficient evidence to establish a mental injury. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, finding that the evidence in the record here was limited to the mother’s testimony that her daughter was shaking and crying, and the audio recording of a few seconds of the child crying. "There is no evidence that there was any lasting effect on the child’s psychological, emotional, or mental health." View "North Dakota v. Castleman" on Justia Law

Joshua Roberts appealed a judgment finding him guilty of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, fentanyl. Roberts argued there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, and the jury should have received an instruction regarding the State’s burden to provide corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the State provided sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice, and any error in failing to provide a jury instruction was harmless. View "North Dakota v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order dismissing a charge of class C felony unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia against Damian Carrillo for lack of probable cause. The State charged Carrillo with felony unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension following an arrest in March 2021. At the preliminary hearing on the paraphernalia charge, Officer Jerad Braaten was the only witness. Officer Braaten testified he initiated a traffic stop on March 2, 2021; Carrillo was driving, and two other passengers were in the vehicle at the time. Carrillo was driving on a suspended license; dispatch informed the officer Carrillo had a history of drug-related activity. Officer Braaten testified he detected the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle; he requested assistance from a canine unit, which alerted on Carrillo’s vehicle. Officers then conducted a probable-cause search of the vehicle. On cross-examination, Officer Braaten stated the paraphernalia was not discovered until after Carrillo had been removed from the vehicle. He also acknowledged that the other passengers “were unsupervised in the suspect vehicle even for a brief period of time.” Officer Braaten testified that Carrillo had physical access to the location where the needle was found, but the other passengers could “throw anything through a car.” The district court dismissed the charge for possession of paraphernalia for lack of probable cause. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the State produced sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the charge. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

John Bridges appealed a district court order denying his applications for postconviction relief. In 2012, Bridges pleaded guilty to murder and kidnapping. The district court sentenced him to life in prison without parole. In 2013, Bridges pleaded guilty to attempted murder and possession of contraband by an inmate. The court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment on each count. n January 2019, Bridges filed applications for postconviction relief in both criminal matters. He alleged he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia that prevented him from filing a timely application for relief. He alleged he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and took psychotropic medication before his incarceration and while in custody. He alleged prison officials coerced him “to say things that would ultimately discredit his history of mental illness.” He alleged he was injected with a powerful antipsychotic drug before sentencing. Bridges sought to withdraw his guilty pleas. The district court held a hearing on Bridges’ applications, allowing him to present evidence related to his mental status. The court found Bridges’ mental status was not newly discovered evidence because his competency was fully evaluated at the time of his convictions. The court found Bridges’ applications were untimely and denied him relief. On appeal of the denial of relief to the North Dakota Supreme Court, Bridges claimed his mental illness prevented him from understanding the charges against him or aiding in his defense. He also claimed his mental illness prevented him from filing a timely application for relief. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Bridges v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order dismissing without prejudice charges of criminal trespass, burglary, and theft of property against Joseph Brown. With the exception of criminal mischief, all charges were class C felonies. At the preliminary hearing, Officer Gannon Miller was the only witness. He was not the investigating officer and had no contact with Brown prior to the preliminary hearing. Officer Miller testified he did not respond to the scene of the possible break-in. The court dismissed the felony charges against Brown, informing the State “unless [the witness] has some actual, hands-on, direct contact with this crime,” the court would not find probable cause. The court determined that “[p]roducing a witness with no point of contact with the case, and whose only role in the hearing would be to read reports and affidavits prepared by others is insufficient to establish probable cause at a preliminary hearing.” On appeal, the State argued the court erred in refusing to admit hearsay testimony offered by the State’s witness. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed. "While a court is given discretion in admitting hearsay evidence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 5.1(a), the court here permitted only a limited examination of Officer Miller before determining he had no basis to provide any testimony. In light of the burden of proof placed upon the State, and noting the court should draw all inferences in favor of the prosecution, we conclude the court abused its discretion by misapplying the law when it unreasonably prevented the State’s inquiry into matters that were relevant to a determination of probable cause. The court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the State to fully examine Officer Miller and in not considering whether Officer Miller’s testimony was implausible or incredible. We hold a court must allow the State to present its evidence at the preliminary hearing before determining what weight to give that evidence, including otherwise inadmissible hearsay." The matter was remanded for a preliminary hearing. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Len Vannett appealed an amended criminal judgment entered after his conditional guilty plea for actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. He argued the arresting officer lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop and the approved methods were not followed in administering the intoxilyzer breath machine. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Vannett's conviction. View "North Dakota v. Vannett" on Justia Law

Allison Houkom appealed after she was found guilty of giving false information to a law enforcement officer. In 2019, Officer Matt Oldham of the West Fargo Police Department attempted to serve a warrant on a male at a residence in West Fargo. Houkom was in the driveway of the residence smoking a cigarette. Oldham approached Houkom and asked if the male he was looking for was inside the residence. She stated she did not know. Oldham then asked Houkom if she lived at the residence. She responded that she did not. Oldham then proceeded to ask Houkom for her name. She responded with “Kaylinn Marie Schmainda.” When Oldham asked for her date of birth, Houkom responded that he did not need it. Oldham then contacted dispatch to check the name. Approximately a minute later, Houkom informed Oldham that she had given him a false name because she had an outstanding warrant. Houkom then provided her correct name, and Oldham determined the warrant was from Minnesota and was non-extraditable. Houkom was arrested and charged with giving false information. On appeal, Houkom argued: (1) the district court erroneously denied her pre-trial motion to dismiss; (2) the district court misinterpreted N.D.C.C. 12.1-11-03(1); and (3) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she interfered with an investigation or materially misled an officer by giving a false name. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that under a correct application of the statute there was insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict. View "North Dakota v. Houkom" on Justia Law