Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Taylor Wilkie appealed an order revoking bail and forfeiting bond after the district court found he violated a condition of the bond order relating to his arrest for a drug crime. Wilkie argued the court erred by requiring him to comply with his probation as a condition of the bond order. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the bond conditions imposed against Wilkie were not erroneous and the court did not err in ordering forfeiture of the bond. View "North Dakota v. Wilkie" on Justia Law

Ronald Thompson appealed an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. In 1991 Thompson was charged with gross sexual imposition and received a court appointed defense lawyer. In 1992 Thompson pled guilty and was sentenced to a ten year prison term with three years suspended. Thompson completed his sentence and the term of probation has expired. In 2012 Thompson applied for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting dismissal of the conviction. Thompson alleged his counsel failed to competently prepare his defense, obtain an independent DNA test, adequately investigate the victim, hire a private investigator and develop a tactical trial strategy. Thompson claimed his attorney's failure to obtain a copy of a DNA report fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and prejudiced him. To meet the prejudice prong of the "Strickland" test, the defendant bore the heavy burden of establishing a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Because the standard used by the district court to analyze the prejudice prong of the Strickland test was an error of law, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. "On remand, the district court must make findings regarding whether a reasonable probability exists that, but for the alleged errors, Thompson would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. If the district court finds a reasonable probability Thompson would have insisted on going to trial, it also must make findings on the first prong of the Strickland test. If the district court finds no reasonable probability Thompson would have insisted on going to trial, post-conviction relief may be denied without examining prong one." View "Thompson v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Tilmer Everett appealed from a district court order denying his application for post-conviction relief and barring him from filing further motions or pleadings without leave of the district court. In 2007, a jury convicted Everett of gross sexual imposition. He appealed, arguing the State violated his constitutional right to remain silent, the court erred by failing to admonish the jury before taking two recesses during trial, and there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Everett first applied for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Everett later amended his application for post-conviction relief, alleging twelve counts of prosecutorial misconduct and fourteen counts of ineffective assistance of counsel. In March 2009, Everett filed a second application for post-conviction relief, claiming a law enforcement officer gave false and perjured testimony during his trial. By February 2013, Everett had filed a seventh application for post-conviction relief and moved for a "substitute" judge. Everett later moved to amend his application, alleging there was newly discovered evidence, including recordings of two 911 telephone calls, and the State failed to disclose this evidence. The district court denied Everett's application and motion for a "substitute" judge. Everett appealed, arguing the court denied his right to a fair appeal in a previous appeal by not ruling on the State's motion for protective order and ruling after the fact on discovery issues; the State denied his right to a fair trial by failing to disclose certain information and to provide recordings of the 911 calls; and the court erred by failing to hear his supplemental motion regarding withheld and newly-discovered evidence. He also asserted the court erred in denying his motion for a substitute judge, arguing the court was biased and prejudiced regarding his motion to disqualify the judge, his motion to compel the State to transcribe the two recorded 911 calls, and in ruling the matter was res judicata. In June 2015, Everett filed his current application for post-conviction relief, making essentially the same arguments made in his seventh application. Finding no error in the district court's denial of the eighth application and bar from filing additional motions without leave of court, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Everett v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Bo Schmidt appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges. Schmidt argued the implied consent advisory was misleading, the chemical test was a warrantless search and North Dakota's refusal statute is unconstitutional. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Schmidt v. Levi" on Justia Law

Cameron Lee Peltier appealed after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Peltier alleged the minor's mother told law enforcement that the minor may have been touched inappropriately by a cousin five years earlier. A forensic interviewer allegedly asked the minor whether she had ever been touched in a manner that made her feel unsafe and she said she had not. Before trial Peltier moved to admit evidence the minor had been sexually assaulted by her cousin. Peltier alleged the minor's failure to disclose a prior incident of abuse during the forensic interview was a prior inconsistent statement and therefore admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 613 for impeachment. Peltier argued on appeal of the district court's judgment that it abused its discretion in excluding that evidence of prior sexual abuse. The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Peltier" on Justia Law

In May 2015, a highway patrol officer stopped defendant Blaise O'Connor's car for a defective taillight. The officer observed O'Connor had slurred speech and bloodshot and watery eyes. O'Connor admitted he consumed some alcohol. The officer administered field sobriety tests, recited a complete implied consent advisory and asked O'Connor if he would submit to an onsite screening test. The State contended O'Connor was read the implied consent advisory contained in N.D.C.C. 39-20-01(3)(a), which included the warning that "refusal to take the test . . . is a crime punishable in the same manner as driving under the influence." O'Connor contended he was given the implied consent advisory contained in N.D.C.C. 39-20-14(3), relating to screening tests, which included the warning that "refusal to take the screening test is a crime." O'Connor submitted to the onsite screening test which revealed a blood alcohol level above the presumptive limit. O'Connor was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. At the jail, the officer asked O'Connor whether he remembered the implied consent advisory previously read to him and O'Connor responded, "yeah, I think so." It was undisputed that before O'Connor submitted to the Intoxilyzer chemical test the officer provided him with a partial implied consent advisory which failed to inform him that refusal to take a chemical test "is a crime punishable in the same manner as driving under the influence." The chemical test revealed a blood alcohol level above the presumptive limit. O'Connor moved to suppress the result of the Intoxilyzer chemical test because the officer failed to provide him with the complete implied consent advisory after he was arrested and before he submitted to the chemical test. The district court agreed with O'Connor and suppressed the result of the chemical test. The State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the suppression because the law enforcement officer after placing O'Connor under arrest did not inform him of the complete implied consent advisory before administering the Intoxilyzer test. View "North Dakota v. O'Connor" on Justia Law

In 1995, Jason Gale was cited for driving under the influence. Gale retained attorney Henry Howe to represent him. Howe requested a jury trial. Although the record did not contain information regarding plea negotiations that presumably took place, a sentencing hearing was scheduled for June 21, 1995. Gale failed to appear at the sentencing hearing, despite the court having mailed him three notices stating he was required to appear personally. After Gale failed to appear, the court issued a warrant for his arrest. No subsequent action was taken on the case until March 5, 2015, when Gale filed a motion to recall the arrest warrant. The City of Grand Forks then filed an amended information, and Gale filed a motion to dismiss arguing his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The district court held a hearing on his motion. Gale asserted he was unaware of the pending case and bench warrant because Howe had told him the case was closed and that Gale's bond had been used to pay the associated fines. Gale claimed he was made aware of the open case when a pre-employment background check revealed the warrant. He asserted the City did not prosecute his case for twenty years despite the fact that he had appeared in North Dakota courts for various criminal and child support proceedings. Gale argued his address was on file with the state, and the City's failure to prosecute the matter amounted to a speedy trial violation. The City claimed it could not locate Gale because he moved to Colorado soon after he failed to appear. The City claimed it had no knowledge of Gale's whereabouts, he caused the delay, and there was no speedy trial violation. The district court found Gale's testimony incredible. The court reasoned Gale likely knew the case was pending but chose not to do anything about it. The court found it likely the only reason Gale took action in 2015 was because his employment opportunity was dependent upon resolution of the warrant. The court denied Gale's motion to dismiss. A jury ultimately found Gale guilty of driving under the influence. He appealed that conviction. The Supreme Court concluded Gale's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, and reversed the judgment. View "City of Grand Forks v. Gale" on Justia Law

Spencer Curtiss was convicted of gross sexual imposition. He appealed a district court order denying his request for relief from an order denying his application for post-conviction relief. He also appealed an order denying his motion for reconsideration. He argued to the Supreme Court: (1) the court erred when it did not consider the criminal trial transcript while ruling on his application for post-conviction relief; and (2) the court erred when it ruled on his motion for reconsideration before he was given an opportunity to respond to the State's answer. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Curtiss v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 2002, Matthew Eagleman pled guilty to gross sexual imposition and harboring a runaway. After twice violating his probation, the district court revoked Eagleman's probation and sentenced him in 2011. This 2011 sentence included a third probationary term. In 2012, the State moved to correct this sentence because, under "North Dakota v. Stavig," (711 N.W.2d 183), a defendant could not be sentenced to more than two terms of probation for the same crime, rendering Eagleman's 2011 sentence illegal. The district court held another sentencing hearing. On October 31, 2012, the court entered a corrective order sentencing Eagleman to twenty years in prison with credit for time served. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the sentence. In December 2013, Eagleman moved the district court to correct what he argued was an illegal sentence. This motion contained arguments similar to those rejected in his 2013 appeal. In February 2014, the district court dismissed the motion. Eagleman appealed that order. In May 2014, Eagleman withdrew the appeal. In June 2014, Eagleman filed an application for post-conviction relief, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the October 2012 sentencing hearing because, among other alleged deficiencies, his counsel failed to request a recent risk assessment concerning his classification as a sexually dangerous individual. In April 2015, the district court summarily dismissed the application, concluding Eagleman already exercised his right to post-conviction relief, the application was a reiteration of previously adjudicated claims, and the statute of limitations barred the application. "While we have heard an appeal from the 2012 sentencing hearing, we have not previously considered whether Eagleman's counsel was ineffective. Although Eagleman may have a prolific litigious streak, the courts have not addressed the issues contained in the current appeal. The district court erred in its contrary conclusion." The Supreme Court reversed and remanded Eagleman's case for further proceedings View "Eagleman v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Corey Costa appealed a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Costa argued the prosecutor's closing argument misstated the evidence and improperly vouched for evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court rejected Costa's arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "North Dakota v. Costa" on Justia Law