Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Summary dismissal is normally inappropriate for post-conviction relief claims arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because such claims typically require development of a record in an evidentiary hearing. Lorry Chase appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Chase was charged with one count of gross sexual imposition (a class AA felony), for an assault occurring in 2007. In 2014, a jury convicted Chase of the charge, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on appeal. After review of Chase's application for post-conviction relief, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, because genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary disposition. View "Chase v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

When a district court error has been waived or invited in a criminal case, the obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) does not apply. Eybon Watkins appealed after a jury found him guilty of robbery and the district court imposed upon him a four-year mandatory minimum sentence as an armed offender. Watkins argues that the district court erred in applying the mandatory minimum sentence for armed offenders in this case because the jury was not required to find that he possessed a firearm, and this error rises to the level of obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b). The North Dakota Supreme Court determined this case did not involve a forfeited error: the issue about the verdict form and the mandatory minimum sentence question was discussed by the parties before, during, and after the trial. Watkins agreed to leave the question off the verdict form as a matter of trial strategy. This error was waived, and the obvious error analysis under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b) did not apply. View "North Dakota v. Watkins" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting John Hawkins' motion to suppress evidence. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded sufficient, competent evidence supported the district court order suppressing blood test results, and its decision wasnot contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court, therefore, affirmed the district court order suppressing the results of Hawkins' blood test. View "North Dakota v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

Shawn Teggatz appealed after a jury found him guilty of reckless endangerment and fleeing or attempting to elude a peace officer. Because the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the verdicts were supported by substantial evidence and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it did not permit Teggatz to testify about his mechanic's out-of-court statements, it affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Teggatz" on Justia Law

Noah Glick appealed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault. After voir dire concluded, the parties exercised their peremptory challenges and the jury was selected and sworn, and the remaining prospective jurors were excused. A former prospective juror then approached the bailiff indicating he wished to bring something to the attention of the court. The former prospective juror informed the judge, Glick and the State that during voir dire a juror sitting next to him, juror D.G., leaned over and told him "she had been a victim of an assault by her boyfriend but she said she had gotten over it." The former prospective juror was a lawyer and felt, as an officer of the court, he had to disclose the statement because D.G. did not raise her hand when the State asked if anyone had been in a fight, and she did not answer when Glick asked if anyone had been the victim of an assault. The district court questioned the juror in chambers, while Glick and the State were present. After the district court's additional questions, Glick moved for mistrial based on juror misconduct. The district court denied Glick's motion. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. View "North Dakota v. Glick" on Justia Law

Rodney Friesz appealed after a jury found him guilty of manslaughter and arson. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not err in denying his motion to suppress evidence, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for manslaughter and arson. The Court remanded, however, for the district court to correct a clerical error in the criminal judgment because the judgment did not clearly state the jury entered a verdict of guilty to the offenses. View "North Dakota v. Friesz" on Justia Law

Heather Leavitt appealed a district court order summarily dismissing her application for post-conviction relief. In 2014 a jury convicted Heather Leavitt of attempted murder, for attacking her husband as he slept with a knife. He sustained serious injuries during the ensuing struggle, but was ultimately able to flee to safety. Although he was unable to positively identify his attacker, he described the assailant to authorities as “having a pony-tail, the same stature as his wife [Heather Leavitt].” Leavitt applied for post-conviction relief, arguing she received ineffective assistance of counsel. In April 2016 the State moved for summary disposition, arguing Heather Leavitt failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Heather Leavitt filed a motion to stay the determination of the State's motion for summary disposition until she filed a supplemental brief. The district court granted her motion. In May 2016 Heather Leavitt filed a supplemental application, arguing she received ineffective assistance of counsel when the lawyer representing her at trial failed to demand a Franks hearing because the affidavit on which the search warrant relied contained false and misleading statements and because favorable evidence was not presented at trial. The State renewed its motion for summary disposition. In November 2016 the district court granted the State's motion, dismissing Heather Leavitt's application. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that in opposing the State’s motion for summary disposition, an applicant for post-conviction relief may not merely rely on the pleadings or on unsupported conclusory allegations but must present competent admissible evidence by affidavit or other comparable means which raises an issue of material fact. To avoid summary dismissal of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an applicant for post-conviction relief must present some evidence that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and he must overcome the presumption that his counsel's performance was within the broad range of reasonableness. Finding no reversible error in the district court’s order, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Leavitt v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order granting Timothy Denault's petition for declaratory relief and vacating his duty to register as a sexual offender in North Dakota. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion in granting declaratory relief and that the Minnesota criminal offense to which Denault pled guilty was equivalent to a North Dakota offense for purposes of sexual offender registration under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(3)(b). View "Denault v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order denying its motion to correct an illegal sentence. Eric Hutchinson was charged with two counts of class AA felony gross sexual imposition and one count of class C felony corruption or solicitation of minors. Hutchinson pleaded not guilty to the charges. At a change of plea hearing, the State indicated the parties had reached a plea agreement. The district court stated, "[t]he sentence will be as you folks have agreed. And judgments will be entered accordingly." The State realized it mistakenly agreed to a different sentence than had been recited and agreed to by Hutchinson at the change of plea hearing. The State requested a status conference to discuss the error in sentencing. The State's attorney made it clear she was not alleging anyone intentionally mislead the district court, but indicated she had mistakenly "blindly--followed [Hutchinson's counsel's] lead" at the hearing. Hutchinson's attorney indicated he had mistakenly suggested the wrong sentence at the sentencing hearing. He also indicated Hutchinson was not willing to agree to an increase in his sentence, even if it had been an error. The district court indicated the State could file a motion under Rule 35, N.D.R.Crim.P., and request modification of the sentence. The State, in its brief in support of motion to correct an illegal sentence, included excerpts from the change of plea hearing where the plea agreement was recited and Hutchinson indicated he understood the agreement. The State argued the sentence was illegal because it failed to comply with promises made in the parties' plea bargain. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the sentence was not illegal because it did not differ from the plea agreement accepted by the district court at the sentencing hearing and it fell within the statutory limits. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the State's motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "North Dakota v. Hutchinson" on Justia Law

Christian Hedstrom appealed a criminal judgment entered on his conditional plea of guilty to manufacturing marijuana and possession of marijuana. He was arrested after three bail bond agents entered and searched his residence, discovered large marijuana plants, and notified law enforcement. Three bail bond agents ("bounty hunters") arrived at Hedstrom's home in search of his brother, a fugitive. They knocked on the door and announced their presence. No one responded. Inside the home, a dog was barking. The bounty hunters thought they saw movement inside. They requested assistance from the Fargo police department in searching Hedstrom's home. After law enforcement officers arrived, the bounty hunters provided them with documentation that confirmed their identity, the fugitive's identity, and Hedstrom's home as the fugitive's residence. The officers informed the bounty hunters they would not assist them in the search but would form a perimeter to ensure everyone's safety. An officer testified that an additional reason for their securing the perimeter was to capture the fugitive if he attempted to escape from a window as the bounty hunters entered the home. The bounty hunters then kicked down Hedstrom's front door and entered his home while the officers secured a perimeter outside. An officer testified that the bounty hunters searched the home for some time, conducting "a thorough search" of the home. The bounty hunters found no one inside. During their search, they found a dog and several large marijuana plants. Upon leaving the house, they showed the officers photographs they had taken inside and described the marijuana plants they had seen in the basement and the upstairs bedroom closet. This information was used by the officers to obtain a search warrant. During the bounty hunters' search, Hedstrom and his girlfriend arrived home. They informed the officers the fugitive had turned himself in, and Hedstrom demanded the officers and the bounty hunters leave his property. The officers detained Hedstrom for the next two hours as they obtained a search warrant, searched the home, and seized the marijuana plants. They arrested Hedstrom, and he was charged with manufacturing marijuana, possession of marijuana, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding the district court did not err in denying Hedstrom's motion to suppress. View "North Dakota v. Hedstrom" on Justia Law