Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Susan Coons appealed a criminal judgment finding her guilty of forgery. During jury selection, the district court informed the jury panel that the potential jurors had the option to speak with the court “in private” in a separate room if they had information to share that might be embarrassing or intrusive. After general questioning of the panel, the court, Coons, the attorneys for both Coons and the State, and an officer met in a private room and conducted individual questioning of three prospective jurors on the record. Coons argued on appeal that this procedure for individual questioning constituted a trial closure and violated her right to public trial. The North Dakota Supreme Court concluded the district court’s findings were sufficient to show an overriding interest but that the court’s limited consideration of the scope of closure and failure to consider alternatives to closure were erroneous. "Although the court identified one interest that may support closure, it did not narrowly tailor to that interest." The Court concluded this error was obvious error and the judgment was reversed. View "North Dakota v. Coons" on Justia Law

Corey Gardner was convicted by jury of child abuse. On appeal, she argued improper jury instructions resulted in obvious error. She also argued insufficient evidence supports the conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Gardner" on Justia Law

Evan Lonechild was charged with escape after being placed in the Lake Region Residential Reentry Center (“Reentry Center”) following a probation violation and subsequently failing to return to the facility while exercising work release privileges. Appealing the escape conviction, Lonechild argued he was not in “official detention” as defined by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-08-06(3)(b) because he was on probation when he left the Reentry Center. The North Dakota Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Lonechild’s conviction. View "North Dakota v. Lonechild" on Justia Law

Andrew Glasser appealed a district court’s denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Glasser pled guilty to child abuse, tampering with evidence and possession of child sexual abuse materials. Glasser filed several character reference letters for the district court to consider at sentencing. Unknown at the time, three of the letters were forged. Glasser was also charged with and ultimately pled guilty to three counts of class A misdemeanor forgery for submission of the letters. On appeal, Glasser argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to appeal his convictions and gave him incorrect advice regarding his guilty pleas and sentencing. He also argued he received an illegal sentence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding Glasser did not receive an illegal sentence or ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Glasser v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Bejan Etemad was convicted by jury of terrorizing. He applied for post-conviction relief, arguing there were errors in the jury selection process that constituted a reversible error. Etemad’s application was summarily dismissed by the district court, finding Etemad’s application was a “meritless, misuse of process and untimely.” To the North Dakota Supreme Court, Etemad argued the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for relief because he wasn’t afforded notice and an opportunity to support his application. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dmissal. View "Etemad v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Jason O’Neal pled guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to fifteen years incarcerated. He applied for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition, and O’Neal appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by denying his application, and he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea and receive newly appointed counsel for a new trial. Finding no abuse of discretion or any other reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial. View "O'Neal v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

P.S. appealed a district court’s judgment denying his petition to be discharged from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. P.S. argued the court erred in finding he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior and that by concluding he had to remain in a clinical setting, the court exceeded its authority under N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 by ordering a specific treatment program—a role expressly assigned to the executive director of the North Dakota Department of Human Services. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, concluding the court did not clearly err in determining P.S. had serious difficulty controlling his behavior, but did exceed its authority as established in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-13 by determining a specific treatment. View "Interest of P.S." on Justia Law

G.L.D. appeals from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. In 1996, G.L.D. was incarcerated after a conviction for gross sexual imposition. As his release date approached, the State petitioned to have G.L.D. committed to the North Dakota State Hospital. In 2007, G.L.D. was committed as a sexually dangerous individual (SDI). Since then, G.L.D. has requested discharge hearings and appealed the denial of those requests. In June 2021, G.L.D. requested a discharge hearing. The hearing was held on September 26, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the district court denied G.L.D.’s request for discharge. G.L.D. timely appealed. He argued the district court erred in finding he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. Under the clear-and-convincing standard of review, the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded such evidence supported the district court’s finding the State showed a nexus between G.L.D.’s antisocial personality disorder and his inability to control his behavior. The district court’s finding that G.L.D. has serious difficulty controlling his behavior was thus not clearly erroneous. View "Interest of G.L.D." on Justia Law

Alvin Brown appealed an order revoking probation. In 2020, Brown pled guilty to two counts of endangerment of a child, a class C felony. The district court sentenced him to a term of incarceration followed by two years of supervised probation. In July 2022, Brown’s probation officer petitioned for revocation of his probation, alleging a series of violations including failing to report to the probation office, failing to attend treatment, using illegal substances, drinking alcohol, and leaving the re-entry center while intoxicated. At the August 2022 hearing, Brown admitted to committing all five violations. On appeal of the revocation, Brown argued the district court erred by revoking his probation without giving him notice of the allegations against him and by making inadequate findings. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Brown" on Justia Law

Jorge Sanchez was convicted by jury of gross sexual imposition in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20- 03(2)(c), sexual contact—victim unaware. Sanchez argued on appeal the district court erred by allowing hearsay evidence at trial. Sanchez also argued the evidence was insufficient to support the criminal conviction. Finding no reversible error, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Sanchez" on Justia Law