Daniel John Crothers

The case involves Jason Robert Pederson (a/k/a Katheryn Pederson) appealing the summary dismissal of her application for postconviction relief following a terrorizing conviction based on emails sent to a former employer's counsel and a subsequent probation revocation for possessing a firearm. Pederson raised claims including ineffective assistance of counsel in the revocation proceedings, lack of state court jurisdiction over matters tied to a prior federal case, numerous constitutional violations, and bias by the district judge, seeking to disqualify her. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the dismissal of most claims as barred by res judicata or misuse of process and found no abuse of discretion in denying the recusal motion, but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding advice about firearm possession.

criminal lawproceduregunscivil rights

In State v. Medina, the defendant appealed from an amended criminal judgment after a conditional guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of possessing a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his vehicle. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the search was valid under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. The core reasoning was that officers had probable cause based on the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's suspicious behavior at a house fire scene and their plain-view observation through the vehicle window of a cut straw with white residue and an electronic scale, both indicative of drug paraphernalia, while the car was unlocked and unoccupied in a public parking lot.

criminal lawprocedure

David Christianson, a teacher with the Grand Forks Public School District, appealed after his two director contracts for Pep Band Director and Music-Instrumental Head Director were not renewed following a reprimand for pranks at a school event. He sued claiming the district failed to follow required nonrenewal procedures under his contracts and grievance process, including timely written decisions and arbitration options. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, finding the director contracts were extracurricular and separate from his teaching contract, so statutory nonrenewal protections did not apply, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the director contracts provided distinct additional duties and compensation without affecting the base teaching salary or load, distinguishing them from prior cases where extracurricular roles were integrated into teaching contracts. Issues like waiver of arbitration were addressed but did not change the outcome on the contracts' classification.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Adoption of K.J.K., a 76-year-old man petitioned to adopt a 40-year-old woman he had known for six years, claiming the adoption would support estate planning and allow her to care for him. The district court dismissed the petition after an evidentiary hearing, finding inconsistencies in the stated goals, concerns about the petitioner's mild cognitive impairment and unaccounted trust funds, the adoptee's unawareness that the adoption would terminate her legal relationship with her mother, and doubts about whether the adoption served the adoptee's best interests. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous under the applicable standard and that the denial of the adoption decree was not an abuse of discretion, as the court had broad latitude to consider relevant facts under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-13(3) even if statutory consents were obtained. The court reviewed the decision for clear error on findings and abuse of discretion on the ultimate denial.

family law

Danielle Nygaard sued Scott Volker and others to quiet title to her Fargo home, claiming Volker forged a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the property to himself after an alleged loan default, and also seeking damages for slander of title and abuse of process. Volker denied forging the deed and counterclaimed for breach of contract and to quiet title in his favor based on a purported loan agreement. After Volker failed to comply with a court-ordered discovery process for his electronic devices, the district court struck his pleadings as a sanction under N.D.R.Civ.P. 37, entered default judgment finding the deed willfully forged, and quieted title in Nygaard's favor. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed because Volker did not move under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to set aside the default judgment and no irregularities appeared on the face of the judgment, while deeming his other arguments inadequately briefed or without merit.

propertyprocedure

In City of Dickinson v. Helgeson, the defendant was cited for a municipal ordinance violation of failing to display license plates on his vehicle and, after a jury found him in violation following extensive pre-trial motions, the district court designated him a vexatious litigant. Helgeson appealed the designation, claiming the underlying proceeding was criminal in nature so the court lacked jurisdiction to apply vexatious litigant rules and that the order violated his constitutional rights. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the traffic violation is a noncriminal infraction under N.D.C.C. § 39-06.1-02 because it is not among the excepted offenses in § 39-06.1-05, granting the district court authority under N.D. Sup. Ct. Admin. R. 58 to make the designation without abuse of discretion. The court also rejected the constitutional challenge as meritless and sanctioned Helgeson $500 for submitting a brief with fictitious case citations.

procedurecriminal lawcivil rights

This case involved the termination of parental rights of C.M., the father of child M.M., following proceedings in juvenile court. The father appealed, arguing that the court clearly erred in finding the causes of the child's need for protection were likely to continue and would not be remedied, and that the child had suffered harm, because he had completed many goals while incarcerated and was soon to be released. The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded the juvenile court did not clearly err in those findings. The court further held there was no abuse of discretion in terminating the father's parental rights. It summarily affirmed the juvenile court order under the applicable appellate rules.

family law

This case concerns the State of North Dakota's petition to terminate the parental rights of P.D., the mother of minor children J.C. and S.C.Y., following findings that the children were in need of protection. The mother appealed the juvenile court's termination order, challenging the findings on the children's need for protection, the likelihood that the causes would continue, the harm suffered, and the lack of required active efforts to provide remedial services to prevent the breakup of the Indian family under N.D.C.C. § 27-19.1-01(2). The Supreme Court previously affirmed the core protection findings and remanded solely for active efforts determinations. On review of the juvenile court's additional findings, the court held that the mother raised no further issues and that the record supported the conclusion that active efforts had been made but proved unsuccessful, leading to affirmance of the termination order.

family law

The case involved Fargo Maple View suing Steven and Vicki Lofthus in Cass County district court for unpaid services, with Vicki Lofthus being legally incapacitated and having a guardian and conservator. Steven Lofthus moved to change venue to Grand Forks County on the ground that the defendants resided there, but the district court denied the motion after finding that Vicki Lofthus resided in Cass County. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed, concluding that Steven Lofthus had not shown the district court abused its discretion by denying the venue change under the applicable statutes and standards.

procedure

The case involved mineral interest owners challenging a North Dakota Industrial Commission order that allocated production from a horizontal well in an overlapping lease-line spacing unit to a section in an underlying base spacing unit not included in the well's spacing unit. The district court affirmed the order, but the Supreme Court reversed that judgment and vacated the NDIC order. The court held that the applicable pooling orders did not authorize allocating production outside the spacing unit boundaries, and the spacing statute requires a formal modification process with notice to affected owners to protect due process rights. Without such an application and notice, the NDIC exceeded its authority in approving the allocation.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Sanderson v. Cole, plaintiff Mitchell Sanderson sued Walsh County State’s Attorney Kelley Cole, alleging she failed to investigate and prosecute government officials for legal violations, though Sanderson later claimed the complaint was mistakenly served and not intended for filing. Cole filed the complaint in district court, moved to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and sought attorney’s fees, arguing the claims were frivolous and barred by prosecutorial immunity. The district court dismissed the action, found it frivolous based on prior similar litigation and lack of factual or legal basis, and awarded Cole over $7,700 in fees and costs. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court had jurisdiction, the claims were properly dismissed as frivolous, prosecutorial immunity applied, and the fee award was within the court’s discretion under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01(2).

procedurecriminal law

In Pederson v. State, the petitioner appealed a district court order summarily dismissing an application for postconviction relief following a terrorizing conviction and subsequent probation revocation for firearm possession. Pederson raised claims including ineffective assistance of counsel during revocation proceedings, lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the case's origins in federal court, various constitutional violations, and bias by the presiding judge. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of most claims on grounds of res judicata and misuse of process, found no jurisdictional defect or abuse of discretion in denying the recusal motion, and held that the district court had properly applied the law on those issues. However, the court reversed in part and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, determining that summary disposition was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or affected the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

Niko Solis was charged with indecent exposure, a class A misdemeanor under North Dakota law, and entered a guilty plea. The district court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with probation and required Solis to register as a sex offender pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(b). Solis appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion by declining to deviate from the registration requirement even though the statutory criteria for deviation were satisfied. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment, holding that the statute mandates registration for such offenses and that satisfaction of the deviation criteria confers discretion on the court but does not require deviation; the district court properly exercised its discretion based on the facts presented.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Medina, the defendant appealed a criminal judgment, asserting that his guilty plea was conditional and reserved his right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. The Supreme Court of North Dakota noted that while the plea hearing transcript indicated all parties understood the plea to be conditional, the judgment itself did not specify this as required by N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). The court remanded the case with instructions for the district court to clarify whether a conditional plea was accepted and, if so, to enter an appropriate order and corrected judgment. This ensures compliance with procedural rules for conditional pleas.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves disputes arising from the administration of the Estate of Marvin C. Lepp, including the removal of co-personal representatives Murray Lepp and Michael Lepp, the appointment of Dacotah Bank as successor, a petition by heir Maureen Lepp to cancel Murray Lepp's contract for deed on estate property, related accounting and rent issues, and various motions for summary judgment and reconsideration. Murray Lepp appealed multiple district court orders against him on these matters. The North Dakota Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was taken from a multi-claim, multi-party action that did not resolve all claims against all parties and lacked the required certification under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The court noted that the parties had not requested such certification and that unresolved claims in the unsupervised probate prevented immediate appellate review.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Hoff, the defendant was convicted of simple assault after a jury trial in which he represented himself following the withdrawal of multiple appointed attorneys due to breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship and conflicts. Hoff appealed, arguing that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by requiring him to proceed pro se without a valid waiver. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that although Hoff's conduct could potentially amount to a functional waiver, the district court failed to make the necessary on-the-record findings that any waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent after properly advising him of the risks of self-representation. The court emphasized that the right to counsel attaches at critical stages and that repeated warnings about no further appointments were insufficient without explicit findings on the validity of the waiver.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Lawrence Harris's appeal from a district court's denial of his application for postconviction relief, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel under the Strickland standard and a Brady violation by the prosecution for failing to disclose a witness's probation conditions. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying relief. It held that Harris failed to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland, as the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous. The court declined to address the Brady claim on its merits because Harris's briefing was inadequate under appellate rules, lacking required citations, analysis of the four Brady factors, and a statement of issues, resulting in waiver of the argument.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gores, defendant Patrick Gores was convicted after a bench trial of preventing arrest, a class A misdemeanor, and domestic violence, a class B misdemeanor, based on an incident involving his sister and subsequent police response. Gores appealed, claiming insufficient evidence because officers did not inform him he was under arrest before restraining him, he did not willfully injure the victim, and he acted in self-defense. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, applying its standard of reviewing the record for competent evidence that reasonably supports guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and concluding that the evidence met this threshold for both charges. The majority rejected the argument that the arrest was unlawful under N.D.C.C. § 29-06-17, finding the process of effecting an arrest allowed for the circumstances presented.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Cole Clemenson appealed a district court amended judgment that designated Ashlyn Clemenson as the primary residential parent for their two children and modified the parenting plan following their 2022 divorce. The parties had initially shared equal residential responsibility on a week-on-week-off basis, but after Ashlyn moved and both parties sought primary responsibility, the district court applied the best interest factors under N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.2, including the domestic violence presumption in factor (j) based on Cole's prior guilty pleas to simple assault-domestic violence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the findings were not clearly erroneous, that the domestic violence presumption applied even where the parties had shared parenting time, and that the court properly weighed the remaining best interest factors without making findings on unsupported ones.

family law

In Boyda v. Boyda, a divorced couple with minor children litigated post-decree motions in which the father sought contempt sanctions against the mother for interfering with parenting time and the mother sought to modify the parenting plan, require a mental examination of the father under N.D.R.Civ.P. 35, and present affidavits from the children. The district court denied contempt, reduced the father's parenting time, ordered the examination and supervised sessions at his expense, admitted the children's affidavits, and delegated aspects of a stepped parenting plan to a therapist. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the parenting-time modification, Rule 35 order, cost allocation, and contempt denial, holding that admission of the affidavits was harmless error because the children later testified live, but reversed the delegation of decision-making authority to the therapist as improper and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion while also sanctioning the father for including extra-record facts in his brief.

family lawprocedure