Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Wesley Cody appealed a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Cody was charged with aggravated assault and reckless endangerment related to a stabbing incident in Morton County. The district court appointed counsel to defend Cody on those charges. In 2014, Cody pled guilty to reckless endangerment. As part of his plea agreement, the State dismissed a class C felony aggravated assault charge alleging Cody stabbed another person. Cody was sentenced to one year with the North Dakota Department of Corrections, suspended for a period of three years. He was placed on probation. On February 3, 2015, Cody's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to serve two years with the North Dakota Department of Corrections. In 2015, Cody filed an application for post-conviction relief. In his application, Cody claimed he had new evidence and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. He argued the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing before denying his application. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing unless requested by a party. Because the district court may deny a defendant's application for post-conviction relief on the merits after the defendant is provided notice and an opportunity to present evidence, the Court affirmed. View "Cody v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

The State, through Ward County Assistant State's Attorney Marie Miller, petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ directing the district court to vacate its order excluding Special Agent Pat Helfrich's testimony in the matter of “North Dakota v. Pittenger,” pending in North Central Judicial District Court. The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction and directed the district court to vacate its order excluding the testimony of Special Agent Pat Helfrich. The Court concluded the district court's order was premature, directed the court to allow the trial to go forward, and to enter its rulings on the proffered testimony as it was offered in such a manner as to allow the court to determine whether the proffered testimony was lay factual testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 401, lay opinion testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 701, or expert opinion testimony under N.D.R.Ev. 702. View "North Dakota v. Louser" on Justia Law

Keith Kraft applied for post-conviction relief to vacate his 1983 drug delivery conviction. The State moved to dismiss, arguing his application was time-barred under N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01. Twenty-eight days after the State's motion, and before Kraft responded, the district court dismissed. The court denied Kraft's motion for reconsideration. Kraft appeals, arguing the district court erred by dismissing his application for post-conviction relief without allowing him thirty days to respond under the rules of civil procedure. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. “If the State's motion to dismiss does not ask the district court to go beyond the pleadings, the applicant must be allowed fourteen days to respond.” View "Kraft v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Cheryl Pfeffer was charged with delivery of a controlled substance and convicted after a two day jury trial. She appealed the district court’s order denying her post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in requiring Pfeffer to prove her appeal had a reasonable probability of success for her to have a valid claim of ineffective assistance. View "Pfeffer v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Terry Brendel appealed an order forfeiting $5,000 of the $25,000 bail bond he posted for his son, Travis. Because Terry was not statutorily authorized to appeal the bond forfeiture order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. View "North Dakota v. Brendel" on Justia Law

Dean Karna appealed the judgment entered on conditional pleas of guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. The issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the district court erred in denying Karna's motion to suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement while searching his home without a warrant. After review of the district court record, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Karna" on Justia Law

Abdullahi Ahmed Adan and Semereab Haile Tesfaye appealed the judgments entered on conditional pleas of guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver. A police officer observed a car driven by Adan (with Tesfaye as passenger) speeding along I-94. The vehicle appeared to weave in its lane. The officer noticed the vehicle had an out-of-state plate. Though the officer saw no traffic infractions, the officer relayed his suspicions to another officer down the road. The second officer pulled the vehicle over. The second officer observed a blanket, covering approximately half of the backseat, an air freshener, a bottle of Ozone scent spray, a global positioning system ("GPS"), eye drops, a lighter, and an energy drink in the vehicle. After the traffic stop, the second officer issued Adan a warning and asked if Adan had time to answer a few more questions; Adan agreed. The officer asked a few questions about Adan's trip before asking permission to search his vehicle and have a dog walk around it. Adan did not consent. The officer called dispatch to send a K-9 to his location. Forty-five minutes later, a K-9 arrived and signaled on the presence of narcotics. After a search of the vehicle, officers seized over two pounds of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Adan and Tesfaye's motions to suppress evidence from that traffic stop, concluding there was reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and that the district court properly denied their motions to suppress evidence gathered as a result of the continued detention. View "North Dakota v. Adan" on Justia Law

Charles Russell appealed after a jury found him guilty of possessing drug paraphernalia. Russell argued the district court erred when it granted the State's motion in limine preventing him from cross-examining the arresting officer about a pending criminal charge, and evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Russell possessed drug paraphernalia. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Russell" on Justia Law

Watford City Police Officer Ryan Chaffee stopped Alexander Patrick because he had more than four white front facing lights on his truck, which Chaffee believed was a violation of N.D.C.C. 39-21-25(2). Chaffee testified Patrick's vehicle had six front facing lights and the lights appeared brighter than other vehicles. Patrick's vehicle had four fog lights and two headlamps. Because of Patrick's previous contacts with law enforcement, Chaffee conducted a drug dog sniff on Patrick's vehicle. The dog alerted Chaffee to the presence of drugs in Patrick's vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle Chaffee discovered a loaded handgun, marijuana residue and cocaine. Chaffee charged Patrick with possessing cocaine with a firearm and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. The State appealed the district court order suppressing evidence seized after a traffic stop. Suppression was based on the district court's finding that the law relied on by Chaffee was unconstitutionally vague. The State argued the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion Patrick violated the law and the officer's mistake of law was reasonable. The Supreme Court found that the evidence supportd a reasonable suspicion Patrick was in violation of the statute. The district court erred in suppressing evidence obtained in the traffic stop because Chaffee's belief the law prohibited more than four front facing lights illuminated at one time was objectively reasonable, giving the officer the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the traffic stop. Because the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order suppressing evidence and remanded for further proceedings, the Court concluded that any decision on the void-for-vagueness issue would have been an improper advisory opinion. The Court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Patrick" on Justia Law

Darrius Patterson appeals from a district court order and judgment denying his application for post-conviction relief. In October 2013 a jury found Patterson guilty of delivering cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school. In January 2014 Patterson was sentenced to 28 years in the North Dakota Department of Corrections. Patterson argues the district court erred denying his application because he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. After careful consideration of Patterson's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court found no ineffective assistance of trial counsel and affirmed. View "Patterson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law