Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Ronald McCoy appealed a district court judgment affirming a Department of Transportation decision suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. The Supreme Court affirmed because McCoy consented to take a chemical breath test given by the law enforcement officer, and his constitutional rights were not violated as a matter of law by North Dakota's implied consent law. View "McCoy v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Joseph Herrman appealed a district court judgment affirming a North Dakota Department of Transportation decision revoking his driving privileges for one year. Herrman was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The Department revoked his license for refusing to take the chemical breath test. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the suspension. View "Herrman v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

Robert Hale, individually and on behalf of the State of North Dakota, and Susan Hale appealed a summary judgment dismissing their public nuisance claim against Ward County and the City of Minot. The Hales had a house on agricultural land about one mile southeast of a shooting range in Ward County, which was used to train local, state, and federal law enforcement officers. Several other farms and homes are located near the Hales' property and the law enforcement shooting range, and County Road 12 runs adjacent to the west side of that shooting range. In "Gowan v. Ward Cnty. Comm.," (764 N.W.2d 425), the Supreme Court affirmed a Ward County Commission zoning decision denying an application to rezone neighboring land, which is about one-quarter mile downrange from the law enforcement shooting range, from agricultural to residential for construction of a residential subdivision. The Ward County Commission denied Gowan's application, citing safety concerns resulting from the proximity of his land to the law enforcement shooting range. In "Hale v. Ward Cnty.", the Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings on the Hales' public nuisance claim. The Court discussed the differences between a private and a public nuisance and explained different evidence was relevant to the Hales' claims for a private and a public nuisance. The Court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing the Hales' private nuisance claim, concluding they failed to present competent evidence supporting their claim the law enforcement shooting range posed a danger to their property. The Court reversed the summary judgment on the Hales' public nuisance claim about use of County Road 12 and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. The Court recognized, however, that Ward County and Minot had not argued the Hales failed to meet the "specially injurious" requirement for a public nuisance claim under N.D.C.C. 42-01-08, and neither the parties nor the district court had addressed the propriety of the Hales bringing an action to abate the law enforcement shooting range under N.D.C.C. ch. 42-02. On remand, the district court concluded "private citizens can bring an action 'ex rel.', but as a threshold matter, such citizens must first satisfy the special injury showing of N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08 or their public nuisance claim must be dismissed." The court granted Ward County and Minot summary judgment on the remanded claim for public nuisance regarding the Hales' use of County Road 12, concluding as a matter of law they failed to meet the "specially injurious" requirement for a private person to maintain a public nuisance claim under N.D.C.C. § 42-01-08. The court also denied the Hales' request to join additional neighbors as parties to their action. The Hales argue the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their public nuisance claim, and in denying their joinder request. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Hale v. Ward County" on Justia Law

Rodney Chisholm appealed a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. Chisholm argued the court erred in summarily dismissing his application on its own motion without providing him with notice or an opportunity to be heard. He also claims the court erred in failing to rule on every issue raised in his application. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the court erred in summarily dismissing the application. View "Chisholm v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Barry Roe appealed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of gross sexual imposition. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in admitting child hearsay statements as part of a stipulation. The Court also concluded there was sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions and the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument. View "North Dakota v. Roe" on Justia Law

Omar Mohamed Kalmio appealed after a jury found him guilty of four counts of class AA felony murder after a jury trial. He argued the judgments should have been reversed because the district court abused its discretion by allowing hearsay testimony and testimony regarding his prior bad acts, denying his request for an alibi jury instruction and denying his motion for mistrial on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Kalmio also argued the evidence is insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "North Dakota v. Kalmio" on Justia Law

Troy Lehman appealed a district court order dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. In 2009, a jury found Lehman guilty of kidnapping and terrorizing. Lehman was sentenced to ten years in the custody of the Department of Corrections for the kidnapping charge and five years for the terrorizing charge, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Lehman alleged, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for numerous reasons including: (1) he did not subpoena all the witnesses Lehman requested; (2) he failed to impeach several witnesses including Daniel Flyinghawk, Patty LeCroix, and Camille Lorenzen; (3) he failed to demand a mistrial; (4) his closing statement was unrelated to the case; and (5) he failed to inform Lehman that not testifying would hinder the appeals process. After a hearing, the district court denied the petition. Lehman appealed. In late, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the application. Effective August 1, 2013, N.D.C.C. 29-32.1-01(2) was amended and reenacted to create a statute akin to a statute of limitations requiring applications for post-conviction relief to be filed within two years following a conviction. On August 2, 2013, one day after the enactment of N.D.C.C. sections 29-32.1-01(2), and 29-32.1-09(1) and (2), Lehman filed his second application for post-conviction relief, claiming he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the first post-conviction relief hearing. Lehman argued, among other things, that his post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance because he failed to: (1) conduct a proper investigation; (2) produce exculpatory evidence; (3) depose key witnesses; and (4) investigate whether trial counsel prepared for cross-examination. The State filed a motion for summary disposition of the application. The district court dismissed the application for post-conviction relief without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in summarily dismissing Lehman's petition for post-conviction relief. View "Lehman v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

Rebecca Larson appealed after she conditionally pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. Brian Kuruc appealed a criminal judgment for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, tampering with physical evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia after also entering a conditional guilty plea. Both Larson and Kuruc appealed their convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly denied Larson and Kuruc's motions to suppress evidence. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court did not err in excluding Larson and Kuruc's Washington medical marijuana prescriptions as a defense to the crimes of possession and possession with intent to deliver. View "North Dakota v. Kuruc" on Justia Law

Rodney Simeon Scheett, Jr., appealed his conviction after a jury found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He challenged the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence used against him. Because the search of Scheett's vehicle was justified under the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "North Dakota v. Scheett" on Justia Law

John Murphy appeaed a judgment that summarily dismissed his application for postconviction relief. Murphy argued that he should have received postconviction relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the factual basis upon which he pled guilty was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Finding no genuine issue of material fact existed, and that the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Murphy's application for postconviction relief. View "Murphy v. North Dakota" on Justia Law