Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

As was relevant in this appeal, the State charged defendant-appellant Mark Beaulieu with refusal to halt and disorderly conduct. At trial, a police officer testified he saw Beaulieu leaving the scene of a reported disturbance. The officer testified he instructed Beaulieu to stop multiple times. After approaching Beaulieu, the officer testified Beaulieu turned in an aggressive manner, causing the officer to step into Beaulieu and resulting in the two going to the ground. The officer testified Beaulieu landed on his back. The officer also testified Beaulieu had a previously bloodied face. Beaulieu contradicted this testimony, testifying he did not hear the officer's instruction. He further testified the officer tackled him and he landed on his face, causing it to become bloodied. After his arrest, the officer brought Beaulieu to jail, where jailers took Beaulieu's mug shot. The jury found Beaulieu not guilty of disorderly conduct but guilty of refusal to halt. Beaulieu appealed the trial court's order denying his motion for new trial following his conviction for refusal to halt. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Beaulieu" on Justia Law

Justin Baker appealed after a jury found him guilty of escape. While Baker was serving jail time at the Grand Forks County Correctional Center, he was granted temporary leave. He failed to return, and was charged with escape, a class C felony. Baker was granted appointed counsel, and they reached a plea agreement with the State. After reaching the plea agreement, Baker spoke with his family and decided he would rather go forward with a trial. At the change of plea hearing, Baker's attorney informed the district court that Baker would not accept the plea agreement and would like to proceed to trial with a new attorney. Because of the assurances he had made to the State's attorney and the court, and to avoid future ethical issues or complaints, the attorney stated he wished to withdraw from the case. When asked by the court whether he had talked to another attorney for private hire, Baker stated his father was trying to get ahold of one, but had been unable to reach him. The court informed Baker it was inclined to approve his attorney's motion to withdraw, if filed, and also informed Baker he would be allowed to obtain private counsel if he desired. The court stated, however, that a new attorney would not be appointed, because his current appointed counsel was capable of representing him and proceeding to trial. After the hearing, Baker's appointed counsel moved to withdraw from the case, and the district court granted the motion. At trial, Baker represented himself. The jury found him guilty of escape. He argued on appeal that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when the district court allowed his appointed counsel to withdraw from the case. The Supreme Court concluded the record did not establish Baker knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and therefore reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "North Dakota v. Baker" on Justia Law

Adrian Williams appealed after a jury found him guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Williams argued the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the warrantless search of his hotel room violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Williams" on Justia Law

On June 15, 2014, Minot police arrested defendant-appellant Robert Putney for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. The City of Minot charged Putney with simple assault for violating a city ordinance. On June 16, 2014, Putney pled guilty to the charge in municipal court and the court sentenced him to 30 days in jail. In July, the State charged Putney with aggravated assault for shooting his girlfriend during the June 2014 incident. Putney moved to dismiss the charge because of double jeopardy, claiming the two charges related to the same incident. The State argued there were two assaults. The district court denied the motion. Following a bench trial, the court found Putney guilty of aggravated assault. Putney moved for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. The court denied the motions, concluding it could not judicially notice the city ordinance, resulting in its inability to perform a double jeopardy analysis. The court sentenced Putney to four years in prison followed by five years of probation and reserved jurisdiction to determine restitution at a later date. Putney appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the State sought to have Putney pay $99,117.55 in restitution for the victim's medical expenses. Following a hearing, the court ordered Putney to pay $49,559 to the Crime Victims Reparation Fund and Trinity Medical Center, and he appealed the restitution order. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Putney" on Justia Law

According to testimony at the suppression hearing, in October 2013, Fargo Police Officer Matt Christensen received information from a department detective that defendant-appellant Chili Musselman would be traveling from Washington State to Fargo on an Amtrak train and that she would have drugs in her possession. The detective had obtained this information from a named informant in another case. Officer Christensen testified the informant's information given to the detective matched up with other information he had been given from drug task force officers, including Officer Christopher McCarthy. Officer Christensen passed the information on to other officers, including McCarthy, who were investigating Musselman in another case. Musselman appealed after a jury found her guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. On appeal, she argued a Fourth Amendment violation because the police officers who arrested her did not have reasonable grounds to stop and question her at the train station. Because there was reasonable suspicion to stop her, the order denying the motion to suppress was proper. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment. View "North Dakota v. Musselman" on Justia Law

Barbara Sokalski appealed after a jury convicted her of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. After review of the arguments she made on appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sokalski's new trial motion because she failed to establish the City's prosecution had presented false testimony and a "false case" against her. View "City of Bismarck v. Sokalski" on Justia Law

The State petitioned to terminate a father's and mother's parental rights in October 2015. The father received the petition, affidavit in support of termination and an affidavit of mailing while incarcerated at the Richland county jail. The affidavit of mailing, which was also received by the guardian ad litem, listed the father's address at the Richland county jail. The guardian ad litem filed a report supporting termination, listing the father's whereabouts as unknown and his last contact with social services as June 2014. The amended report stated the mother was voluntarily terminating her parental rights. The court mailed the report to the father at the Richland county jail. The father appealed the juvenile court's order adopting a judicial referee's decision to terminate his parental rights. He appealed both the juvenile court order and the judicial referee's order, arguing he was denied due process of law because the guardian ad litem failed to fulfill mandatory responsibilities. The Supreme Court found the guardian ad litem's failure to interview the father did not violate the father's constitutional right to due process. The juvenile court order adopting the judicial referee's order and terminating the father's parental rights was affirmed. View "Interest of N.A." on Justia Law

Peter Grzeskowiak appealed an order summarily denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 2013, Grzeskowiak was charged with physical obstruction of a government function and two counts of mistreating animals after investigation of a man being attacked by dogs on a rural road near Grzeskowiak's farm. In October 2013, Grzeskowiak, with court-appointed counsel, pled guilty to one count of mistreating animals and the other two charges against him were dismissed. In 2015, Grzeskowiak filed a self-represented application for post-conviction relief, generally alleging he had been denied his natural right of liberty and due process by fraud, sham proceedings, false charges, wanton disregard for the truth in issuing a broad warrant, denial of bail, false transcripts, and denial of the right to counsel. Grzeskowiak's request for court-appointed counsel was denied with a statement that he failed to submit proof of his earning ability and that his request for counsel would be reconsidered if he submitted proof within five days. The district court thereafter summarily denied Grzeskowiak's application for post-conviction relief, stating it did not specify the criminal charge and sentence from which relief was sought, did not set forth a concise statement of each ground for relief, and did not specify the relief requested. The court explained Grzeskowiak failed to substantively state a claim for which relief could be granted and his application was meritless on its face. After review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded Grzeskowiak's appellate brief failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, and affirmed the district court order. View "Grzeskowiak v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2013, a confidential informant ("CI") working with the Ward County Narcotics Task Force met with and purchased a substance from Trisha Engstrom. The substance was identified as likely being marijuana. Engstrom left this meeting and went to a residence identified as belonging to defendant Rodney Rogahn, where Engstrom was seen entering the residence. The CI arranged multiple meetings with Engstrom; officers did not see Engstrom leave Rogahn's residence. Prior to a third meeting, officers applied for a daytime search warrant for Rogahn's residence. Officers arrested Engstrom at the third meeting, after which they executed the search warrant of Rogahn's residence at 9:54 p.m. The search lasted until 11:25 p.m. As a result of the search, Rogahn was charged with various drug related crimes. Rogahn moved to suppress evidence obtained in the search, arguing no probable cause existed and the officers executed the warrant at an unreasonable time. Rogahn further requested a "Franks" hearing, arguing the attesting officer made false statements in the affidavit of probable cause and the false statements were necessary for a finding of probable cause. The district court denied Rogahn's motion, concluding probable cause existed and the officers executed the warrant at a reasonable time. The court also denied a Franks hearing, concluding any false statements by the attesting officer were not made knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly with regard to the truth and the allegedly false statements were not necessary for a finding of probable cause. Rogahn appealed after he conditionally pled guilty to various drug crimes, reserving the right to appeal an order denying his motion to suppress certain evidence and his request for a "Franks" hearing. Finding no reversible error after a review of the district court record, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Rogahn's conviction ad the court's decisions. View "North Dakota v. Rogahn" on Justia Law

Austin Van Zomeren appealed after a jury found him guilty of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of at least .08 percent. Before trial, Van Zomeren moved to suppress the blood test, arguing he did not voluntarily consent to take the test. He argued the deputy's reading of the implied consent advisory coerced him to take the test by stating he would be charged with a crime if he refused. The district court rejected his argument and denied the motion to suppress. Finding no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting results of the blood test, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Van Zomeren" on Justia Law