Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Dale Yost appealed an order denying his motion to withdraw guilty pleas and amended criminal judgments. In October 2012, the State of North Dakota charged Yost with eleven counts of gross sexual imposition involving five minors. Yost argues the district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of his guilty pleas, did not advise him of his rights before his pleas, and erred in amending the amended judgments because the district court lacked jurisdiction. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Yost's motion, vacated the district court's second amended judgment, and remanded for correction of the first amended judgment. View "North Dakota v. Yost" on Justia Law

Kenneth Ndumbe Ngale appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to actual physical control of a motor vehicle. He argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because he was seized and arrested by a person who was not a licensed law enforcement officer and did not have authority to investigate and arrest. In rejecting Ngale's argument, the North Dakota Supreme Court found a reserve deputy, who provides services on a non-salaried basis and has full arrest authority, and is not required to be licensed to perform peace officer law enforcement duties. View "North Dakota v. Ngale" on Justia Law

Brian Vanberkom appealed after the district court found him guilty of reckless driving. Vanberkom argued that jeopardy attached when he was convicted of Care Required in violation of N.D.C.C. 39-09-01.1 and that the subsequent charge for reckless driving for the same conduct violated his constitutional rights. Because there was sufficient evidence of reckless driving and double jeopardy did not bar prosecution, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Vanberkom" on Justia Law

Ashley Hunter appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of murder and one count of arson. On the afternoon of June 22, 2015, Fargo police officers responded to a call about a death at a north Fargo location and found the body of Clarence Flowers. Flowers had been stabbed numerous times. Later that day, firefighters responded to a call about a fire at another north Fargo location and found the body of Samuel Traut. Traut had been killed by blunt force trauma to the head. The next morning Fargo police officers were dispatched to an address near the Traut murder scene in response to a call about a suspicious male. When officers arrived at the address, Hunter approached them and was arrested. Hunter was considered a person of interest in the Traut death, but the officers arrested him on a bench warrant for unrelated charges. Hunter was taken to the police station, where he was questioned by Fargo police. Hunter made several incriminating statements related to the Flowers and Traut murders. After the interview was complete, Hunter attempted suicide and was taken to the hospital. Hunter was charged with two counts of murder and one count of arson. Hunter argued on appeal: (1) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress; (2) the court erred in allowing testimony about his statements to a medical professional; and (3) the judge should have recused himself. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Hunter" on Justia Law

James Jorgenson apealed a district court's order approving pretrial diversion and order of restitution. The State charged Jorgenson with two counts of theft of property for depriving Jackie Blikre of proceeds from the sale of calves. The district court approved a pretrial diversion agreement entered into by the parties ("Diversion Order"), suspending prosecution for sixty months after which the charges would be dismissed if Jorgenson met certain conditions. One such condition was that Jorgenson "shall pay restitution to be determined by the Court at a contested Restitution Hearing . . . ." After a restitution hearing, the district court ordered Jorgenson to pay restitution in the amount of $50,000. Although these orders were not appealable under N.D.C.C. 29-28-06, the North Dakota Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to review them. Because these orders did not comply with N.D.R.Crim.P. 32.2, they were vacated. View "North Dakota v. Jorgenson" on Justia Law

Ronald Beltran appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence and driving under suspension. Beltran argued the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict him of driving under the influence. Beltran also argued the district court abused its discretion by not allowing the introduction of medical records and denying his request to stipulate to his license status. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Beltran" on Justia Law

James Blue II appealed convictions after entering Alford pleas to two counts of terrorizing, seven counts of reckless endangerment, two counts of simple assault on emergency medical personnel, three counts of contact by bodily fluids, unlawful possession of a firearm, interference with a telephone during an emergency call, and attempted murder. These charges arose from an assault of his then-girlfriend in 2016. After he entered his pleas, the State requested restitution in the amount of $2,716.13. The requested restitution represented the cost of disposing of the destroyed residence, reimbursement to Workers' Compensation (or the equivalent), and reimbursement to Medicaid for various medical expenses. The district court asked Blue if he wanted a restitution hearing or if he wanted to stipulate to the amount. Blue indicated he would stipulate to the restitution and the court found Blue was making a knowing and intelligent decision to stipulate to restitution. Blue did not argue on appeal for a reduction of the restitution; rather, he only argued the court needed to make a factual finding that he was able to pay the restitution. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-08(1)(b) when ordering restitution, and reversed as to that issue. The Court affirmed Blue’s conviction in all other respects. View "North Dakota v. Blue" on Justia Law

Paul Schaffner appealed a district court order finding him guilty of prostitution/solicitation under City of Bismarck, N.D., Code of Ordinances section 6-05-08(1)(b). Because there was sufficient evidence of prostitution/solicitation and because any potential argument concerning a conflict between the city ordinance and state law was waived, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "City of Bismarck v. Schaffner" on Justia Law

C.T. Marhula appealed a judgment dismissing an action contesting a special election in the City of Grand Forks. Marhula argued Grand Forks lacked authority under its home rule charter and city ordinances to designate one voting location for the special election. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Marhula's post-election challenge to the special election was moot, and affirmed the judgment dismissing the action. View "Poochigian v. City of Grand Forks" on Justia Law

Joshua Taylor appealed after a jury found him guilty of refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. Throughout the proceedings, Taylor represented himself and maintained that a video from the arresting officer's patrol vehicle would establish he stopped at the stop sign. The record did not include a written request for discovery by Taylor, but in his appellate brief he claimed he requested the audio and video recordings from the state's attorney's office and was ultimately told the materials were unrecoverable. In response to a district court inquiry about the status of discovery at a pretrial dispositional conference, Taylor indicated "[i]t sounds like what I was waiting on is unrecoverable," and he moved to dismiss the charge for "lack of evidence." He argued the arresting officer did not have a valid reason for the initial traffic stop and, as a result, the officer's subsequent requests for an onsite screening test and a chemical test were invalid. Taylor thereafter requested a jury instruction under N.D.C.C. 39-20-14(1), which authorized a law enforcement officer to request an onsite screening test if the officer "has reason to believe that the individual committed a moving traffic violation . . . and in conjunction with the violation . . . the officer has, through the officer's observations, formulated an opinion that the individual's body contains alcohol." The district court provided the jury with preliminary instructions, including an instruction on the essential elements of the charge of refusing a chemical test. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined there was sufficient evidence establishing that Taylor drove his vehicle on a road in Richland County and that he refused to submit to the Intoxilyzer test. The Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss. View "North Dakota v. Taylor" on Justia Law