Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Anthony Campbell appealed a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of murder for the 2014 stabbing death of Shannon Brunelle. The autopsy report stated Brunelle had seven lethal stab wounds in his back and neck and had been beaten with a golf club. Minot police arrested Campbell for the murder of Brunelle. At trial, the State submitted evidence showing Campbell's DNA was found inside a pair of bloody athletic shoes found inside the garage. Campbell's DNA was also found on a broken golf club used to strike Brunelle. Campbell testified at trial he had no involvement in Brunelle's murder. Campbell offered testimony from Ross Rolshoven, an expert private investigator to provide his opinions of the case. Rolshoven testified that he believed at least two assailants were present when Brunelle was murdered. Rolshoven also provided his opinions about the State's investigation and a third-party's possible involvement in Brunelle's murder. The district court sustained the State's objections when Rolshoven testified about facts not in evidence. After a seven-day trial, the jury found Campbell guilty of Brunelle's murder. Campbell argued on appeal of his conviction that the district court should have allowed his expert to provide all of his opinions about Brunelle's murder. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary decisions relating to the testimony of Campbell's expert witness and the admission of evidence of prior bad acts. View "North Dakota v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Haruna Giwa appealed the summary dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief based on a newly adopted rule of criminal procedure. Giwa pleaded guilty to interference with a telephone during an emergency call, and the district court entered the criminal judgment on November 17, 2015. Giwa was not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. Giwa was paroled into the United States in November 2014. In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") terminated Giwa's parole status. As part of his guilty plea, Giwa signed an acknowledgment of rights, waiver of appearance, plea agreement, and plea on November 16, 2015. However, the acknowledgment and plea documents did not include information about the possible immigration consequences if Giwa was not a United States citizen. Giwa applied for post-conviction relief, arguing he was not advised of "the right to a jury trial, the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to be protected from compelled self-incrimination or to testify and present evidence." Giwa also argued he was not informed of the potential immigration status consequences if he pleaded guilty to interference with a telephone during an emergency call. Further, Giwa contends he did not know DHS would terminate his parole and detain him due to pleading guilty to a crime. The district court denied Giwa's application for post-conviction relief and granted the State's motion for summary disposition under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-09. In granting the State's motion, the district court determined Giwa acknowledged his rights, including the waiver of his right to counsel. Additionally, the district court concluded the addition of N.D.R.Crim.P.11(b)(1)(j) did not apply retroactively, meaning neither the State nor the district court had an obligation to inform Giwa about the effect of a guilty plea on his immigration status. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "Giwa v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The North Dakota Department of Transportation appealed a district court judgment reversing a Department hearing officer's decision to suspend Alexis Glaser's driving privileges for two years. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Glaser failed to rebut the prima facie evidence of the time of the accident on the report and notice, showing her chemical Intoxilyzer test was administered within two hours of driving. Furthermore, the Court concluded a reasoning mind could reasonably conclude Glaser drove or was in physical control of a motor vehicle within two hours of performance of a chemical test was supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the entire record. The Court therefore reversed the judgment and reinstated the suspension of Glaser's driving privileges for two years. View "Glaser v. N.D. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

Ale Majetic appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. Majetic argued his right to an impartial jury was violated when, after a 56-day continuance, the district court failed to inquire whether the jury had formed an opinion in the case or had been influenced by the media. He also argued the court abused its discretion in commenting on his expert witness's testimony. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not commit obvious error, and affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Majetic" on Justia Law

Steven Newark, Jr. appealed after a jury found him guilty of burglary, terrorizing, and criminal mischief. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Newark's motion for a continuance or a dismissal. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the State to call a police officer to testify in rebuttal and in delaying its ruling whether other officers would be allowed to testify in rebuttal. View "North Dakota v. Newark" on Justia Law

Mark Rath appealed a district court order denying his petition to correct his sentence or declare a "mistrial" based on his claim of prejudicial sentencing. A supervisory writ is issued rarely and cautiously only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative remedy exists. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rath's petition under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 because his sentence was not illegal. The Court treated his request on appeal, however, as a request for a writ of supervision based on the district court's oral pronouncement during his resentencing in 2012 for a felony that he would keep his "misdemeanor disposition." The Court concluded this was an appropriate case to exercise its discretionary supervisory jurisdiction. The Court remanded with instructions for the district court to direct the clerk of district court to change the disposition of this case to a misdemeanor under N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-02(9). View "North Dakota v. Rath" on Justia Law

The State appealed an order granting Steven Helm's motion to dismiss a criminal prosecution against him for refusing to submit to a warrantless urine test incident to arrest. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the State could not criminally prosecute Helm for refusing to submit to the warrantless urine test incident to arrest. View "North Dakota v. Helm" on Justia Law

Robert Pulkrabek appealed the district court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of theft of property. Pulkrabek argued the district court erred when it did not tell the jury it had to unanimously agree on which theory of theft it believed he committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a jury was not required to unanimously agree upon which action the defendant committed under the subsections of N.D.C.C. 12.1.-23-02. View "North Dakota v. Pulkrabek" on Justia Law

A district court's decision on a motion for mistrial will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing the court abused its discretion or that a manifest injustice would occur. The cumulative effect of multiple errors may be productive of a manifest injustice which requires the district court to declare a mistrial. Brady Blotske appealed a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition, felonious restraint, and terrorizing. During the testimony of one of the detectives, the State offered the video interview of Blotske and stated, "pursuant to the previous stipulation where we admitted the tape, I would like to play about 13 minutes of the interview where they actually get into the specifics." The State played the video for the jury. Blotske's counsel objected because the video began to play content the parties had agreed to omit. The district court permitted the State to address the jury about the statement. Blotske requested a mistrial just before the second day of trial was set to begin. Blotske's counsel argued the statements on the video were prejudicial and when the State addressed the jury about the statements, it brought further attention to the misinformation and tainted the jury beyond repair. The State resisted the motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Blotske's request for a mistrial, reverseed and remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Blotske" on Justia Law

Under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 804, it does not matter that the defendant may have had significantly less incentive to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary examination hearing than at the trial, the testimony is permissible at trial if it meets the requirements under the rule. If a prior consistent statement is to be admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), the declarant must testify and be subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which it is being offered. Duane Azure, Jr., appealed a criminal judgment after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. A deputy observed Yvette Belgarde lying on the floor in the living room when responding to a 911 call to the Azure residence. The deputy requested an ambulance to the residence and Belgarde was transported to the local emergency room. Her initial explanation to law enforcement and medical personnel about her injuries was that she fell on the deck. Approximately two weeks later, while in the hospital, Belgarde contacted law enforcement and stated her injuries were not caused by falling on the deck, but by Azure assaulting her. Belgarde was interviewed by Agent Allen Kluth of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Belgarde restated to Agent Kluth that Azure had assaulted her and that she was afraid to say anything at first. Azure was subsequently charged with aggravated assault. Prior to trial, Belgarde died from causes unrelated to the assault. Azure argued the district court abused its discretion by allowing two prior statements of the State's witness into evidence at trial. Because the district court abused its discretion in allowing the victim's prior statement to police into evidence under North Dakota Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded. View "North Dakota v. Azure" on Justia Law