Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Donald Weisz appealed a district court's criminal judgment and the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. Weisz was arrested for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while intoxicated. Weisz entered a conditional plea of guilty. Weisz argued that because the City of Bismarck lacked probable cause to arrest him, the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding there was sufficient competent evidence of probable cause to arrest Weisz for being in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. View "City of Bismarck v. Weisz" on Justia Law

Martin Blackcloud (a/ka/ Black Cloud) appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In April 2014, Blackcloud was convicted of gross sexual imposition, in which the victim was his girlfriend's daughter. Blackcloud previously appealed that criminal judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court based on an alibi defense, and the Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Blackcloud then applied for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. In his application, Blackcloud argued: (1) his trial counsel failed to file a notice of alibi defense and failed to object to the lack of specificity in the charging information; (2) his trial counsel failed to effectively cross-examine the State's expert witnesses regarding possible contamination of the DNA evidence found on the victim; and (3) his trial counsel failed to impeach the victim's mother's trial testimony or introduce evidence of her weight gain, which he claims would have supported his defense that the victim and the mother shared clothing. After holding an evidentiary hearing where both Blackcloud and his trial counsel testified, the district court denied Blackcloud's application. On appeal, Blackcloud argued the district court erred in denying his application for post-conviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and the district court abused its discretion in excluding a photograph from evidence at the post-conviction relief hearing. Blackcloud argued his trial counsel failed to properly investigate the mother of the victim's weight gain and locate the photograph he offered at the evidentiary hearing. Blackcloud further contended his counsel's assistance was deficient because he should have further pursued Blackcloud's defense theory that the victim and her mother shared clothing, which could have explained Blackcloud's DNA on the victim's underwear. A district court does not err in denying a petitioner's application for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. A district court does not abuse its discretion when it excludes evidence, which trial counsel was not previously aware of, in an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court did not err in denying Blackcloud’s application for relief. View "Blackcloud v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Delvin Shaw appealed after a jury found him guilty of murder and burglary. Shaw argued the district court erred in admitting evidence of other crimes or bad acts, and the court erred in playing the earlier testimony of a State's witness after finding the witness was unavailable to testify at trial. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Shaw" on Justia Law

Laura Rende appealed after a jury found her guilty of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the criminal judgment and remanded this case for a new trial, finding that the disclosure of a preliminary breath test result during Rende's trial violated the legislative directive contained in N.D.C.C. 39-20-14(3), was not harmless error, and required the granting of Rende's request for a mistrial. View "North Dakota v. Rende" on Justia Law

Mark Brown appealed four criminal judgments entered after the district court found him guilty of driving while under suspension on four separate occasions. Brown argued there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and the district court erred in enhancing the classification for the final conviction to a class A misdemeanor. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Mark Brown appealed four criminal judgments entered after the district court found him guilty of driving while under suspension on four separate occasions. Brown argued there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and the district court erred in enhancing the classification for the final conviction to a class A misdemeanor. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Aron Williams appeals from a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with Jennifer Williams. Aron and Jennifer were married in April 2015, have two minor children together, and resided in Jamestown. They separated in April 2016 and were in the process of obtaining a divorce in Stutsman County. After the separation, Jennifer moved to West Fargo. In June 2016, Jennifer filed for a temporary domestic violence protection order against Aron in Cass County, but the parties stipulated to dismissal of the order and the district court in the divorce action ordered that exchanges for Aron’s parenting time with one of the children occur at Rainbow Bridge in Moorhead, Minnesota. In December 2016, Jennifer moved to modify the provisions of an interim order on child support, attorney fees, spousal support, and parenting time in the Stutsman County divorce proceedings. In January 2017, the district court granted the motion and ordered exchanges of the children to occur at the West Fargo Police Department. On January 30, 2017, Jennifer filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Aron in Cass County, alleging he committed several acts intended to adversely affect her safety, security, and privacy. Although Jennifer testified about several acts of alleged disorderly conduct, the district court indicated the only incidents it would consider were those that occurred after the January 13, 2017, amended interim order was entered in the divorce action. Aron’s attorney argued that Aron's words constituted constitutionally protected free speech, and the parties argued the constitutional issue before the court. The trial court found reasonable grounds to believe Aron’s actions constituted disorderly conduct and granted the restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred by failing to address the constitutional issues Aron raised. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for the district court to make a new determination as to whether a disorderly conduct restraining order should issue on the basis of any remaining conduct. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Aron Williams appeals from a two-year disorderly conduct restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with Jennifer Williams. Aron and Jennifer were married in April 2015, have two minor children together, and resided in Jamestown. They separated in April 2016 and were in the process of obtaining a divorce in Stutsman County. After the separation, Jennifer moved to West Fargo. In June 2016, Jennifer filed for a temporary domestic violence protection order against Aron in Cass County, but the parties stipulated to dismissal of the order and the district court in the divorce action ordered that exchanges for Aron’s parenting time with one of the children occur at Rainbow Bridge in Moorhead, Minnesota. In December 2016, Jennifer moved to modify the provisions of an interim order on child support, attorney fees, spousal support, and parenting time in the Stutsman County divorce proceedings. In January 2017, the district court granted the motion and ordered exchanges of the children to occur at the West Fargo Police Department. On January 30, 2017, Jennifer filed a petition for a disorderly conduct restraining order against Aron in Cass County, alleging he committed several acts intended to adversely affect her safety, security, and privacy. Although Jennifer testified about several acts of alleged disorderly conduct, the district court indicated the only incidents it would consider were those that occurred after the January 13, 2017, amended interim order was entered in the divorce action. Aron’s attorney argued that Aron's words constituted constitutionally protected free speech, and the parties argued the constitutional issue before the court. The trial court found reasonable grounds to believe Aron’s actions constituted disorderly conduct and granted the restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court determined the district court erred by failing to address the constitutional issues Aron raised. The Court therefore reversed and remanded for the district court to make a new determination as to whether a disorderly conduct restraining order should issue on the basis of any remaining conduct. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law

Lukas Kostelecky appealed a district court's restitution order reflected within the judgment. On February 27, 2017, Kostelecky was arrested for criminal mischief, a class C felony, after damaging property at the New Town High School. Kostelecky pleaded guilty to criminal mischief, a class A misdemeanor, on July 27, 2017. The district court held a restitution hearing and determined Kostelecky owed $3,790 to the New Town school district for the damage to a ten-year-old copy machine. Kostelecky argued the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the amount of $3,790. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the district court misapplied the law in determining that N.D. Const. art. I, section 25(1)(n) required restitution beyond what is necessary to make the victim whole. View "North Dakota v. Kostelecky" on Justia Law