Mary Muehlen Maring

Timothy Lamb, after failing the February 2008 North Dakota bar exam and being denied admission, requested extensive information on the exam's grading, scoring, and procedures from the State Board of Law Examiners, first through discovery in a hearing and then via open records requests. When the Board provided limited materials and denied further disclosure, Lamb sought a writ of mandamus from the district court to compel production, arguing that open records laws and the state constitution overrode any confidentiality rules. The district court denied the writ, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that bar admissions are a judicial function governed by the Admission to Practice Rules, which render the requested records confidential and exempt from public disclosure under N.D.C.C. § 44-04-18.8. The court concluded Lamb lacked a clear legal right to the information, as the rules control over general open records statutes and no exception applied.

procedure

This case concerns parents appealing a juvenile court order extending their child's placement in the custody of Grand Forks County Social Services for twelve months based on a finding of continued deprivation. The mother did not file an appellate brief, resulting in dismissal of her appeal under procedural rules, while the father's appeal proceeded. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the order, holding that the juvenile court's findings of ongoing deprivation—supported by the father's incomplete compliance with required evaluations, treatment programs, and contact restrictions—were not clearly erroneous, that reasonable reunification efforts had been made by social services, and that the court did not err in denying related motions for visitation or return of the child.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Lehman, Troy Lehman was charged with kidnapping, attempted theft by deception, and terrorizing after he apprehended Daniel Flyinghawk, a person who had skipped bail, and restrained him for several hours while negotiating with a bail bond company. A jury convicted Lehman of kidnapping and terrorizing but acquitted him of attempted theft. Lehman appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction, that the jury should have been instructed on a private person's arrest authority, and that the verdicts were inconsistent. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that evidence of abduction and restraint with intent to hold for ransom or reward was sufficient, that the jury instructions adequately stated the law, and that the verdicts were logically consistent because kidnapping requires only intent while attempted theft requires proof of a substantial step toward deprivation of property.

criminal law

The case involved M.W., a juvenile accused in a petition alleging five counts of gross sexual imposition, and a juvenile court's attempt to transfer jurisdiction over two of those counts to district court following a prior remand from the North Dakota Supreme Court. On remand, the juvenile court held a hearing and issued a transfer order under N.D.C.C. § 27-20-34(1)(c) after M.W. had already turned 20 years old. The Supreme Court concluded that the juvenile court's jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. ch. 27-20 ended when M.W. attained age 20, making any subsequent order void, and therefore vacated the transfer order without addressing other issues raised on appeal.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved Corey Allen Mohl's appeal from a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The court reasoned that, under the totality of the circumstances including the late hour and the officer's experience, the vehicle's repeated touching of the fog line sixteen times and center line eight times over three miles amounted to erratic driving within its lane that justified an investigative stop, distinguishing it from prior cases with less pronounced movement.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. Wanner, the defendant was charged with criminal mischief for willfully damaging three vehicles by fire in the early morning hours, amid a custody dispute with his ex-partner. The jury convicted him based on circumstantial evidence including witness testimonies about prior threats, purchases of gas cans and spray paint matching items at the scene, and physical evidence linking him to the crime. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and that any violation of the witness sequestration order did not prejudice the defendant because the officer's testimony was not influenced by prior statements heard in court.

criminal lawprocedure