Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Danial Curtis was convicted of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information. At trial, a bank teller testified Curtis entered the bank where she worked producing a check for cashing. The teller noticed several "red flags" on the check; her manager testified to noticing the same red flags. The manager contacted the account holder to inquire if the check was authorized; the account holder testified she had thrown out any checks she had remaining once she closed the account. Representing himself, Curtis called a friend who testified Curtis was not attempting to cash the check, but was only attempting to see if the check was valid. Based on the evidence presented, the district court found beyond a reasonable doubt Curtis willfully presented the check to cash, and found Curtis guilty of the unauthorized use of personal identifying information "to obtain money without the authorization of consent of the holder of the account, and the value of the money exceeded $1,000." On appeal, Curtis argued there was insufficient information presented to support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Curtis' conviction. View "North Dakota v. Curtis" on Justia Law

Ashton Steele appealed after conditionally pleading guilty to delivery of a controlled substance and possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance. The plea reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. After review of the trial court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Steele had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rented bedroom and a reasonable officer would not have believed the homeowner could consent to a search of the bedroom. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Steele" on Justia Law

Lawrence Didier appealed an order and judgment denying his discharge from civil commitment. Between 1988 and 2008, Didier was convicted of gross sexual imposition and indecent exposure, and was twice convicted of sexual assault. After a State petition, the district court ordered Didier committed as a sexually dangerous individual in November 2010 under N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.3. Didier petitioned for an annual review hearing under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-18 seeking discharge from commitment. Dr. Deirdre D’Orazio, Ph.D., a doctor of clinical and forensic psychology, submitted a report for the North Dakota State Hospital stating her expert opinion was that Didier remained a sexually dangerous individual. The district court held a hearing and subsequently issued an order and judgment denying Didier’s petition for discharge from civil commitment. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the trial court's finding by clear and convincing evidence that Didier had serious difficulty controlling his behavior based on both his past and present conduct was not clearly erroneous, and was supported by the record. Accordingly, the distric court's order and judgment were affirmed. View "Matter of Didier" on Justia Law

Charles Brame pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault. On appeal, Brame sought to withdraw his guilty pleas because the district court failed to explicitly ask him whether he was entering his plea voluntarily or whether his plea resulted from force, threats, or promises. "A Rule 11 error does not automatically lead to reversal." The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that a defendant who failed to first raise the alleged error at the district court must show a Rule 11 violation’s impact on substantial rights before the Court will undo a guilty plea. Because Brame did not show the alleged violation had an impact on his substantial rights, the Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Brame" on Justia Law

Carolyn Nelson appealed her conviction from a bench trial for the crime of accomplice to theft. Nelson was the president of the Oberon School Board. Laura Schnieber-Bruns and her business, Victim Survivor the Voice, LLC, were engaged to perform services for the school. The exact nature of the services was disputed, but an agreement signed by Nelson and Schnieber-Bruns described the work as “investigate, research, compile and deliver ongoing actions request of the Oberon School Board.” The agreement specified a “set-up fee” of $7,500, an “on-going management” fee of $7,500, and a $200 hourly rate for “services outside the scope of this Agreement.” Schnieber-Bruns was later charged with class A felony theft for taking more than $150,000 from the Oberon School “through a deceptive scheme pursuant to” the agreement. She pleaded guilty by an Alford plea. Nelson challenged her conviction as an accomplice. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court declined to address issues Nelson did not raise at the district court or brief on appeal under the obvious error standard of review. View "North Dakota v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Moses Ben Yalartai appealed after he pled guilty to gross sexual imposition. Yalartai argued the district court violated his right to self-representation and erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and Yalartai waived the right to challenge whether the court violated his right of self- representation by pleading guilty. View "North Dakota v. Yalartai" on Justia Law

Sean Kovalevich appealed a district court order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a). Kovalevich was subject to a pre-filing order prohibiting him from filing “any new litigation or any new documents in existing litigation” without first obtaining leave of the court. The North Dakota Supreme Court treated the court’s current order as denying Kovalevich leave of court to file new documents. Orders denying leave to file were not appealable. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed Kovalevich’s appeal. View "North Dakota v. Kovalevich" on Justia Law

Bradley Morales appealed a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to murder. Morales was convicted by jury of murdering his ex-girlfriend. He was granted a new trial after it was found Morales’ right to a public trial was violated. On the fourth day of the new trial, Morales sought to enter a guilty plea. In verifying his plea was made “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently,” Morales made a lengthy statement, admitting to stabbing the victim. He apologized to the victim’s family. Roughly nine months later, Morales moved to withdraw his plea. He was thereafter sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. Morales argued the district court erred by not addressing a statement he made at the sentencing hearing indicating he was suffering from depression and anxiety. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Morales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "North Dakota v. Morales" on Justia Law

Milo Blaine Whitetail was convicted by jury of intentional or knowing murder. Whitetail argued on appeal the evidence is insufficient to prove that he was not in a dissociative mental state at the time of the murder due to his post-traumatic stress disorder. Whitetail also argued the State did not prove he acted knowingly or intentionally. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Whitetail" on Justia Law

Dean Hatzenbuehler appealed an order revoking sentencing and judgment imposing a new sentence. In August 2022, Hatzenbuehler pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance, a class B felony; delivery of a controlled substance, a class B felony; possession of a controlled substance-methamphetamine, a class A misdemeanor; and possession of drug paraphernalia, a class A misdemeanor He argued the district court’s findings of fact on the revocation of his probation were clearly erroneous and the court erred by not adequately considering the statutory sentencing factors. The North Dakota concluded the court’s findings supporting revocation were not clearly erroneous, the court adequately considered the statutory factors, and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence upon revocation. View "North Dakota v. Hatzenbuehler" on Justia Law