Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Bo James appealed a judgment entered after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence and he conditionally pled guilty to driving under the influence. After review, the Supreme Court concluded sufficient evidence established reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop James's vehicle, and affirmed James' conviction. View "North Dakota v. James" on Justia Law

Peggy Keller appealed after a jury found her guilty of refusing to submit to alcohol testing. At trial, Keller asked the district court to instruct the jury that an individual accused of driving under the influence had a limited statutory right to contact an attorney before deciding whether to submit to alcohol testing. Keller requested the jury be instructed that a request to consult an attorney is a defense to the crime of refusal. Keller also asked the district court to instruct the jury that affirmative refusal is required to find guilt, and the accused does not affirmatively refuse if she requests to contact an attorney and law enforcement fails to provide an opportunity to do so. The district court refused to give Keller's requested instructions. Keller argued on appeal that the district court erred in failing to give her requested jury instructions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Keller" on Justia Law

Ruthie Mann appealed a district court order denying her motion to dismiss a criminal charge for refusing to submit to chemical testing, and the resulting criminal judgment sentencing her to five years in prison with all but eighteen months suspended. Mann argued the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss because her prosecution under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(1)(e), North Dakota's criminal refusal statute, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and North Dakota Const. art. I, section 8. The North Dakota Court had previously rejected these same arguments, and the Court concluded Mann provided no compelling arguments warranting departure from these holdings. Mann also argued the district court erred by not conforming its criminal judgment with the jury verdict. In doing so, Mann raised the issue of whether N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(3) authorized a court to take judicial notice of a defendant's prior offenses when such offenses are an essential element of the charged offense. Mann argued the court's ability to take judicial notice of prior convictions under N.D.C.C. 39-08-01(3) was limited to matters of pleading and does not allow judicial notice of an essential element of a charged offense. To that argument, the State agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying Mann's motion to dismiss, but reversed the criminal judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Mann" on Justia Law

Robert Putney assaulted a woman on the night of June 15, 2014. According to police affidavits, Putney brought an injured woman to a Minot hospital. Medical personnel observed the woman had abrasions on her face, an injury to the back of her head, and hair had been forcibly pulled from her head. After further examination, medical personnel also discovered the woman had been shot, which necessitated removal of part of her large intestine. The medical personnel also informed the responding officers the woman identified Putney as the man who assaulted her. The City of Minot charged Putney with violation of a municipal ordinance for simple assault. After Putney pled guilty to the municipal charge, police discovered a discarded handgun that matched an empty gun box found in Putney's residence. Medical personnel could not recover the bullet because of the way it was lodged in the woman, but it had a diameter comparable to that which would be fired from the recovered handgun. The State then charged Putney with aggravated assault. Prior to trial, Putney moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the charge violated his constitutional and statutory rights against double jeopardy because he had already been convicted of the assault in municipal court. The court preliminarily denied the motion, concluding factual issues existed making summary judgment inappropriate. After a bench trial, the court found Putney guilty. Because the court found Putney caused a permanent impairment of a bodily function, the court found Putney guilty of a class B felony. After entry of the judgment and order, Putney moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence supported his conviction and double jeopardy applied. The trial court concluded sufficient evidence supported the conviction because the evidence showed Putney acted with the requisite culpability, the woman suffered a serious bodily injury, and the woman suffered a permanent impairment of a bodily function. The court also concluded it could not judicially notice the municipal ordinance despite Putney having provided the court with the ordinance because it was a court of general jurisdiction, Putney did not offer the ordinance into evidence, and the parties had not stipulated to the ordinance. Because the court concluded it could not judicially notice the ordinance so as to perform the double jeopardy analysis, and sufficient evidence otherwise supported the conviction, the court denied Putney's motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the criminal judgment and the order denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, and reversed the order denying the motion for new trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. Putney" on Justia Law

Jeremy Johnson appealed a district court order continuing his commitment as a sexually dangerous individual. He argued the district court's findings were insufficient to demonstrate he had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. After review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded the district court's findings were insufficient, and its order was reversed. View "Interest of Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Bryan Reddig appealed after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. He argued the district court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal. He also argued the district court should not have admitted into evidence the chemist's analytical report and should have instructed the jury that testimony of an accomplice must be corroborated. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court, concluding the case was properly submitted to the jury, the jury was properly instructed, and the court did not err by admitting into evidence a certified copy of the chemical analyst's report. View "North Dakota v. Reddig" on Justia Law

Pro se defendant-appellant Michael McClary appealed orders denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. In April 2011, McClary was charged with five counts of gross sexual imposition. The first four counts were alleged to have occurred in 2010 and the penalty sections for those offenses were listed in the criminal complaint as class A or AA felonies. The fifth count was alleged to have occurred in "2004 or 2005" and the penalty section listed was "Class B Felony (pre-August 2005 version)." In January 2012, after the class AA felony was reduced to a class A felony, McClary pled guilty to all five charges. McClary was sentenced to serve ten years in prison with three years suspended with credit for time served on each charge. For each charge, McClary was also placed on supervised probation for ten years from the later of the date of his release from incarceration or the termination of his parole. The district court ordered that the sentences "run concurrent" with each other. In April 2015, McClary moved to correct an illegal sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(a), and requested a hearing and court-appointed counsel. Without holding a hearing or commenting on McClary's request for appointed counsel, the district court agreed with the State and denied the motion. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in ruling on McClary's motion without addressing his requests for appointed counsel. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "North Dakota v. McClary" on Justia Law

In March 2013, the State charged Ryan Anderson with class AA felony murder after he killed Christopher King by stabbing him four times at Capitol Lodge "man camp" near Tioga. Anderson appealed after a jury found him guilty. Anderson argued the judgment should have been reversed because the district court erred by allowing testimony on Anderson's post-arrest silence and allowing improper comments by the prosecutor which amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. Anderson further argued the district court abused its discretion by giving a jury instruction on flight and failed to give a curative instruction on testimony that should have been excluded based on a pretrial order. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Dustin Knox was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and driving while his license was suspended. He appealed his eventual conviction, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. After review of the facts and circumstances specific to this case, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the district court for findings explaining the basis for denying Knox's motion to suppress. View "North Dakota v. Knox" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court order denying forfeiture of $16,420 in U.S. currency seized by law enforcement during a traffic stop. Deputy Sheriff Rich Hoffer stopped Karl Horning after he failed to stop at a stop sign. Hoffer searched the vehicle when a drug detection dog indicated illegal drugs were present. Hoffer found a cooler on the front passenger floorboard containing a car title, cell phone, syringes, drug paraphernalia, marijuana, methamphetamine and a bag containing $15,960 in cash. Hoffer searched Horning and found an additional $460 in cash, a syringe cap and a marijuana smoking device. Before trial, the State filed a motion under to forfeit the cash seized in the traffic stop. Before the district court ruled on the motion, a jury found Horning guilty of possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine paraphernalia, but not guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. After sentencing, the district court granted the State's forfeiture motion and Horning filed a motion to reconsider. The district court granted Horning's motion to reconsider, vacated its earlier order and denied the State's motion to forfeit the currency. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the district court's order did not provide a clear explanation of the basis used to grant Horning's motion for reconsideration of the forfeiture order. It was unclear whether the evidence was insufficient to support forfeiture or whether the district court relied on Horning's acquittal. View "North Dakota v. Horning" on Justia Law