Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Rivera appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of creating or possessing sexually expressive images, two counts of attempting to create or possess sexually expressive images, and six counts of surreptitious intrusion. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err by sentencing Rivera to consecutive sentences. View "North Dakota v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Shawn Montgomery appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to a charge of driving under the influence. Montgomery argued the State violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search by compelling his consent to a blood test. Voluntary consent to a warrantless blood test is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, for which the State bears the burden of proof. A district court's decision on a motion to suppress will not be reversed if there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

When considering whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a container found within an automobile, courts will look at whether the individual: (1) asserts ownership of the container; (2) asserts ownership of the vehicle; (3) testifies or presents evidence establishing possessory interest in the container; (4) was present at the time of the search; and (5) whether the container itself has identifying markings or if the contents within have identifying characteristics. Casey Adams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia. Police received a report of suspicious activity in a Grand Forks parking lot. The caller reported individuals moving backpacks from a Nissan into a Cadillac, among other suspicious behavior. Three officers responded to the scene. The officers testified they observed the individuals displaying odd behavior, consistent with drug use. One officer observed a blue container he believed to be drug paraphernalia inside the Cadillac, indicating he saw a crystal or powder substance on it and it was similar to a container used in a separate drug related call less than 24 hours prior. Three individuals were in the Cadillac and Adams was in the Nissan. No consent was given to search either vehicle. Based on the observation of the blue container in plain view, the officers searched the Cadillac and seized more than 80 items relating to drug use. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Adams' argument that the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not support the district court's probable cause finding was moot. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in denying Adams' motion to suppress evidence because Adams failed to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpacks. View "North Dakota v. Adams" on Justia Law

Brenda Doll appealed a district court order denying her motion for reconsideration of a disorderly conduct restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Doll's motion for reconsideration. View "Kautzman v. Doll" on Justia Law

Brenda Doll appealed a district court order denying her motion for reconsideration of a disorderly conduct restraining order. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Doll's motion for reconsideration. View "Kautzman v. Doll" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Jonathan Horvath of murder, reckless endangerment, two counts of terrorizing, and a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Horvath appealed arguing insufficient evidence existed for a rational jury to find him guilty. Horvath filed a supplemental statement alleging perjury, improper closing statements, among other matters. Horvath filed an amended application for post-conviction relief and requested an evidentiary hearing. Horvath's amended application alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel: (1) failed to subpoena an essential witness to rebut two of the State's witnesses; and (2) trial counsel failed to present exculpatory video evidence, when exhibit 24 was not shown in full. The court summarily dismissed Horvath's application for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Horvath’s application. View "Horvath v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Jonathan Horvath of murder, reckless endangerment, two counts of terrorizing, and a felon in possession of a firearm, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Horvath appealed arguing insufficient evidence existed for a rational jury to find him guilty. Horvath filed a supplemental statement alleging perjury, improper closing statements, among other matters. Horvath filed an amended application for post-conviction relief and requested an evidentiary hearing. Horvath's amended application alleged he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel: (1) failed to subpoena an essential witness to rebut two of the State's witnesses; and (2) trial counsel failed to present exculpatory video evidence, when exhibit 24 was not shown in full. The court summarily dismissed Horvath's application for post-conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Horvath’s application. View "Horvath v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

C.B. appealed a juvenile court order adopting a judicial referee's order finding C.B. failed to register as a sex offender. In June 2012, C.B. pled guilty to "assault IV with sexual motivation" in Washington state. The adjudication and disposition order did not require C.B. to register as a sex offender in Washington. In the fall of 2012, C.B. moved to North Dakota with his father. At the request of the juvenile court, C.B. registered as a sex offender in North Dakota in November 2013. In May 2015, C.B. updated his registration at the Bismarck Police Department. After updating his registration, an assistant Burleigh County state's attorney issued a juvenile petition to C.B. for committing the delinquent act of failure to register as a sex offender. The petition alleged C.B. failed to timely "alert law enforcement to a new job, a new place of residence, a telephone number or his facebook account." C.B. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing he should not be required to register. At an October 2015 hearing on the motion, an assistant attorney general testified C.B.'s assault IV with sexual motivation in Washington was equivalent to a class A misdemeanor sexual offense in North Dakota that required registration. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judicial referee stated he was dismissing the petition, and issued an order of dismissal. Shortly thereafter, the referee rescinded the order of dismissal, stating he decided the motion wrongly due to a legal error. The judicial referee provided notice to the parties the same day that they had the right to have the order reviewed by a juvenile court judge if the request was made within seven days. C.B. did not request review of the order. C.B. again moved to dismiss the petition in November 2015, arguing the judicial referee exceeded his authority when he rescinded the order dismissing the petition. The referee denied the motion. C.B. sought review of the referee's decision from the juvenile court. The juvenile court adopted the referee's decision denying the motion. C.B. filed another motion to dismiss in December 2015, arguing the State failed to give full faith and credit to the Washington order that did not require C.B. to register as a sex offender. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: although C.B. was not required to register as a sex offender in Washington, Full Faith and Credit does not prohibit North Dakota from requiring C.B. to register. View "Interest of C.B." on Justia Law

C.B. appealed a juvenile court order adopting a judicial referee's order finding C.B. failed to register as a sex offender. In June 2012, C.B. pled guilty to "assault IV with sexual motivation" in Washington state. The adjudication and disposition order did not require C.B. to register as a sex offender in Washington. In the fall of 2012, C.B. moved to North Dakota with his father. At the request of the juvenile court, C.B. registered as a sex offender in North Dakota in November 2013. In May 2015, C.B. updated his registration at the Bismarck Police Department. After updating his registration, an assistant Burleigh County state's attorney issued a juvenile petition to C.B. for committing the delinquent act of failure to register as a sex offender. The petition alleged C.B. failed to timely "alert law enforcement to a new job, a new place of residence, a telephone number or his facebook account." C.B. moved to dismiss the petition, arguing he should not be required to register. At an October 2015 hearing on the motion, an assistant attorney general testified C.B.'s assault IV with sexual motivation in Washington was equivalent to a class A misdemeanor sexual offense in North Dakota that required registration. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judicial referee stated he was dismissing the petition, and issued an order of dismissal. Shortly thereafter, the referee rescinded the order of dismissal, stating he decided the motion wrongly due to a legal error. The judicial referee provided notice to the parties the same day that they had the right to have the order reviewed by a juvenile court judge if the request was made within seven days. C.B. did not request review of the order. C.B. again moved to dismiss the petition in November 2015, arguing the judicial referee exceeded his authority when he rescinded the order dismissing the petition. The referee denied the motion. C.B. sought review of the referee's decision from the juvenile court. The juvenile court adopted the referee's decision denying the motion. C.B. filed another motion to dismiss in December 2015, arguing the State failed to give full faith and credit to the Washington order that did not require C.B. to register as a sex offender. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed: although C.B. was not required to register as a sex offender in Washington, Full Faith and Credit does not prohibit North Dakota from requiring C.B. to register. View "Interest of C.B." on Justia Law

Cody Michael Atkins appealed a district court's order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In 2015, Atkins plead guilty to gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to 20 years with the North Dakota Department of Corrections with five years suspended for 10 years and 10 years of supervised probation. Atkins' conviction was affirmed on appeal. In March 2016, Atkins filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In April 2016, the court entered a scheduling order but Atkins failed to timely file a brief and the petition was dismissed. In September 2016, Atkins filed an identical petition for post-conviction relief. In October 2016, the court entered a scheduling order and after being granted an extension, Atkins filed a supplemental brief in March 2017. Atkins' brief included several conclusory statements alleging his counsel was defective and a request for an evidentiary hearing. In April 2017, the State filed a motion and brief in support of summary dismissal. The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 2017. Atkins failed to respond to the State's motion. Atkins did not file any affidavits or other comparable means of evidence in support of the allegations contained in his brief. On May 5, 2017, the district court granted the motion for summary dismissal. Atkins' supplemental brief listed six ways in which he is entitled to post-conviction relief; Atkins argued the State's failure to refute the factual assertions in his brief relieved him of the burden of producing competent, admissible evidence prior to the evidentiary hearing. Because Atkins was put to his proof when the State moved for summary disposition, and Atkins did not meet his minimal burden of supporting his application with competent, admissible evidence raising an issue of material fact, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirm the district court's order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. View "Atkins v. North Dakota" on Justia Law