Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant was charged with murder and contributing to the delinquency of a minor after allegedly killing his wife in their home while their two young children were present. Before trial, the prosecution requested that the children be allowed to testify remotely, arguing that testifying in the defendant’s presence would cause them significant emotional distress and impair their ability to communicate. The district court held hearings, received testimony from mental health professionals who had treated the children, and ultimately granted the State’s motion, finding that remote testimony was necessary to prevent serious emotional trauma to the children.The District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, presided over the case. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of contributing to the deprivation of a minor, and the murder charge proceeded to trial. The court instructed the jury that the children’s remote testimony was permissible by law and should not influence their deliberations. The children testified via two-way electronic communication, and the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The court entered a judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole. The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court failed to make the findings required by statute for remote testimony and that his constitutional right to confront witnesses was violated.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court made the necessary findings under North Dakota Century Code § 31-04-04.2(1), specifically that testifying in the defendant’s presence would likely cause the children serious emotional distress or trauma impacting their ability to communicate. The Supreme Court found these findings were supported by the evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The court concluded that the defendant’s confrontation rights were not violated and affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Moen" on Justia Law

Liquid Hospitality, LLC, doing business as Windbreak Saloon, holds a liquor license from the City of Fargo. On August 18, 2023, Windbreak staff removed an intoxicated patron who later drove away and was involved in a single-vehicle accident. The patron had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.291 and was arrested for driving under the influence. The Fargo Police Department investigated and reviewed surveillance footage, which showed the patron being served multiple drinks and exhibiting signs of intoxication. The Windbreak was notified of a hearing before the Liquor Control Board for a possible violation of Fargo Municipal Code (F.M.C.) § 25-1509.2, which prohibits serving alcohol to intoxicated or impaired persons.The Liquor Control Board held a hearing on October 24, 2023, and determined that the Windbreak violated F.M.C. § 25-1509.2, recommending a $500 administrative penalty. The Windbreak appealed to the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo, which upheld the Liquor Control Board's decision. The Windbreak then appealed to the district court.The district court requested additional briefing on the constitutionality of F.M.C. § 25-1509.2 and ultimately found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague, reversing the Commission's order. The court did not address whether the Commission acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably, or whether their decision lacked substantial evidence. The Commission appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and concluded that F.M.C. § 25-1509.2 is not unconstitutionally vague. The court found that the ordinance provides adequate warning of prohibited conduct and creates minimum guidelines for enforcement. The court also determined that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The district court's judgment was reversed. View "Liquid Hospitality v. Bd. of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Daedyn Lewellyn was charged with terrorizing. His trial was initially scheduled for September 2023, but his court-appointed attorney retired, leading to multiple changes in representation. Lewellyn requested and was granted a continuance to review discovery, rescheduling the trial to January 2024. He later sought to change his plea but expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney, leading to further changes in representation. By August 2024, Lewellyn had gone through six court-appointed attorneys, with the last few withdrawing due to conflicts or deteriorated attorney-client relationships. On the eve of trial, Lewellyn dismissed his latest attorney and requested a continuance and new counsel, which the court denied.The District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, presided over by Judge Cynthia M. Feland, handled the initial proceedings. The court granted several continuances due to changes in Lewellyn’s representation and scheduling conflicts. However, when Lewellyn dismissed his attorney the day before the trial, the court denied his request for another continuance and new counsel, citing the case's age and multiple previous continuances.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Lewellyn’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated. It determined that Lewellyn’s conduct amounted to a voluntary waiver of his right to counsel, as he was repeatedly informed that no further substitute counsel would be appointed. The court also found that Lewellyn’s waiver was knowing and intelligent, given his understanding of the risks of self-representation. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance request, considering the case's age and the numerous previous continuances. The Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "State v. Lewellyn" on Justia Law

In June 2020, the North Dakota Department of Health inspected ND Indoor RV Park, LLC and found several health, safety, and fire code violations. The Park was informed that its 2020 operating license would be revoked unless the violations were corrected. The Park did not address the violations, leading to the initiation of the license revocation process. The Park also requested a renewal of its license for 2021, which was denied due to the existing violations. The Park was allowed to operate until the hearing proceedings were final. The Park later withdrew its request for a hearing, and the Department of Health dismissed the renewal application and closed the case. Subsequently, the Park sold its property.The Park filed a complaint against the State of North Dakota, alleging regulatory taking, deprivation of substantive and procedural due process, inverse condemnation, unlawful interference with business relationships, systemic violation of due process, and estoppel. The State moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming qualified immunity for individual defendants and lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the takings claims. The district court denied the State’s motion for summary judgment on the takings and due process claims but granted summary judgment on the unlawful interference claim. The remaining claims were dismissed by stipulation.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court granted a writ of supervision, directing the district court to dismiss counts II and III because the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also directed the dismissal of counts I and IV for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the Park failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that the Park could not prevail on its substantive and procedural due process claims and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the takings claims. View "ND Indoor RV Park v. State" on Justia Law

Brent Burton was charged with domestic violence, a class B misdemeanor, after a 911 call was made from his residence reporting an assault. The call was purportedly made by Burton's wife, who described being grabbed and slapped by Burton. The State filed a notice of intent to use the 911 call recording as evidence, supported by a certificate of authenticity from the records custodian of Central Dakota Communications. Burton pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.At the jury trial, the State was unable to locate or subpoena Burton's wife. Burton objected to the introduction of the 911 call recording, arguing it violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. The district court admitted the recording, finding it addressed an ongoing emergency. The jury found Burton guilty, and the court sentenced him accordingly.Burton appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, arguing the admission of the 911 call violated his Sixth Amendment rights and that the recording was improperly authenticated and contained inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and concluded the 911 call was nontestimonial, as its primary purpose was to address an ongoing emergency. The court also found sufficient circumstantial evidence to authenticate the call and determined it fell under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the admission of the 911 call did not violate Burton's constitutional rights and that the recording was properly authenticated and admissible under the hearsay exceptions. View "State v. Burton" on Justia Law

Kyle Zittleman and ShanaLea Bibler were married in 2010 and had one child in 2012. They divorced in 2016, with a Wyoming court granting Zittleman primary residential responsibility. Bibler filed motions to modify residential responsibility and child support in 2018 and 2020, but Zittleman retained primary responsibility. Zittleman moved to North Dakota in 2019, and Bibler followed in 2022. In 2023, Bibler again moved to modify residential responsibility, citing her relocation, Zittleman’s alleged non-compliance with a judgment, and the child's worsening demeanor.The Morton County district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2024, limiting each party to two and a half hours for their case. Bibler used all her time before cross-examining two witnesses and argued this violated her due process rights. The district court found no material change in circumstances and denied her motion. Bibler appealed, claiming the time limitation and the court's findings were erroneous.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo for constitutional claims and under an abuse of discretion standard for procedural matters. The court found that the district court did not violate due process by limiting the hearing time, as both parties were notified and did not object or request additional time. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the time limitation.The Supreme Court upheld the district court's finding that there was no material change in circumstances. The court noted that Bibler's move to North Dakota, Zittleman’s adherence to the judgment, and allegations of alienation did not constitute a material change. The court also found that the district court did not err in omitting a best interests analysis, as it was not required without a material change in circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Bibler's motion to modify residential responsibility. View "Zittleman v. Bibler" on Justia Law

In March 2023, the State charged Christopher Allman with multiple counts of domestic violence, felonious restraint, and terrorizing, alleging he assaulted his wife and their live-in girlfriend, locked them in a room, and refused to let them leave. The parties agreed Allman would undergo a mental health examination to determine his criminal responsibility. The examination was delayed due to issues with obtaining Allman’s records from the Veterans Administration. The evaluation, completed in August 2024, concluded Allman did not suffer from a mental condition precluding criminal liability. A jury trial in August 2024 resulted in guilty verdicts on all counts, and Allman was sentenced to consecutive five-year terms of imprisonment, with credit for time served on one count.The District Court of McKenzie County, Northwest Judicial District, oversaw the initial proceedings. Allman appealed, arguing errors related to the criminal responsibility evaluation, his fitness to stand trial, his right to a speedy trial, and the legality of his sentence. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the evaluation order, asserting it was against his will and violated his right against self-incrimination. He also argued the court should have ordered a fitness evaluation and that his right to a speedy trial was denied due to the delays in obtaining his mental health records.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not err in ordering the criminal responsibility evaluation because the parties had stipulated to it. The court found no grounds to doubt Allman’s fitness to stand trial and noted he did not request a fitness evaluation. The court also determined that Allman’s right to a speedy trial was not violated, as the delays were not due to the State’s conduct, and Allman did not properly assert his right. Finally, the court affirmed the legality of Allman’s sentence, rejecting his argument about credit for time served. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. Allman" on Justia Law

The case involves Access Independent Health Services, Inc., doing business as Red River Women’s Clinic, and several physicians who challenged the constitutionality of North Dakota’s abortion regulation statutes, N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1. The plaintiffs argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated pregnant women’s rights to life and health-preserving care under the North Dakota Constitution.The District Court of Burleigh County granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the law unconstitutionally vague and recognizing a fundamental right for pregnant women to choose abortion before viability under the North Dakota Constitution. The court found that the law’s language was ambiguous and did not provide clear guidelines for physicians, thus violating due process. The court also held that the law infringed on the fundamental rights of pregnant women.The State of North Dakota appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota, seeking a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal. The Supreme Court of North Dakota denied the motion for a stay. The court applied a four-factor test to determine whether to grant a stay: likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable injury to the appellant, substantial harm to any party, and harm to the public interest. The court found that the State was unlikely to succeed on the merits of the appeal, as the law was likely unconstitutionally vague and did not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for laws infringing on fundamental rights. The court also determined that the balance of harms and public interest did not favor granting a stay, noting that the law had never been enforced and that the state’s attorneys had agreed not to enforce it pending the outcome of the appeal. View "Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley" on Justia Law

The City of Fargo, a home rule municipality, adopted zoning ordinances prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition as home occupations and in non-farm commercial use zoned districts. In 2023, the North Dakota legislature passed House Bill 1340, amending N.D.C.C. §§ 40-05.1-06 and 62.1-01-03 to limit the authority of political subdivisions, including home rule cities, regarding firearms and ammunition. Fargo filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 1340 and seeking a declaration that the amended statutes did not void its ordinances.The District Court of Cass County granted summary judgment in favor of the State, holding that H.B. 1340 did not violate the North Dakota Constitution and expressly preempted and voided Fargo’s zoning ordinances. Fargo appealed the decision.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that H.B. 1340 was a valid exercise of the legislature’s constitutional authority to define the powers of home rule cities. The court concluded that the amended statutes were constitutional as applied to Fargo’s home rule charter and ordinances. The court also determined that H.B. 1340 preempted and rendered void Fargo’s zoning ordinances prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition, as the legislature had expressly limited the authority of political subdivisions in this area. View "City of Fargo v. State" on Justia Law

James Thesing was charged with domestic violence in November 2022 and released under a pre-dispositional order prohibiting contact with the alleged victim. In March 2023, he was arrested for violating this order by initiating contact with the protected person while in custody. He was charged with two counts of violating the order, class A misdemeanors. In July 2023, the original domestic violence charge was dismissed, and the pre-dispositional order was terminated.Thesing filed a motion to dismiss one count in November 2023, arguing that the order only applied while he was released from custody. The District Court of Cass County denied the motion in December 2023, concluding that the order remained in effect after his arrest, was not contingent on release, and met constitutional requirements. Thesing entered a conditional guilty plea in February 2024, preserving his right to appeal, and the other count was dismissed. He appealed in March 2024.The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on statutory interpretation. The court found that the statute, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31.2-02, unambiguously allowed the pre-dispositional order to remain in effect even after Thesing was taken back into custody. The court also noted that the order itself explicitly prohibited contact by any means and was to terminate only upon case disposition unless modified by the court.Thesing's argument that the order was a condition of release and did not apply while he was in custody was rejected. The court also dismissed his claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, noting that his brief lacked supporting arguments and citations. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Thesing" on Justia Law