State v. Thompson
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-10-25 · cited 68×
Jennifer Thompson was convicted by a jury of simple assault on a family or household member after an incident in which she allegedly punched her husband during an argument over money. She appealed the criminal judgment, claiming the district court erred in admitting testimony and a picture of text messages sent from her cell phone, on grounds that the evidence was irrelevant, lacked proper foundation, constituted hearsay, and was improperly used for impeachment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the messages were relevant to the events, adequately authenticated through witness testimony about phone numbers and signatures, admissible as party-opponent statements rather than hearsay, and properly admitted for impeachment given Thompson's equivocation on cross-examination. The court remanded solely to correct a clerical error stating the judgment was based on a guilty plea rather than the jury verdict.
criminal lawfamily lawprocedure
In Re Hanenberg
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-08-25 · cited 3×
The case involved James Hanenberg's appeal from a district court order involuntarily committing him as a sexually dangerous individual under North Dakota law after his 2006 conviction for corruption or solicitation of a minor. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the commitment order, holding that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Hanenberg had engaged in sexually predatory conduct, had a qualifying mental disorder or dysfunction, was likely to engage in further predatory acts, and had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court applied a modified clearly erroneous standard of review, credited the state's expert psychologist's testimony and diagnosis over the defense expert's differing opinion regarding the mitigating effect of supervised probation, and upheld the district court's credibility and factual determinations.
criminal law
Workforce Safety & Insurance v. Auck
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-07-02 · cited 26×
The case involved Cynthia Auck's claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband Richard, an assembler at Bobcat Company, suffered a fatal heart attack in 2006, which she attributed to unusual long-term work-related stress and chronic pain. Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) denied the claim, but an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reversed that decision after finding that the evidence showed with reasonable medical certainty that the stress was at least fifty percent of the cause of the heart attack compared to other factors. The district court affirmed the ALJ's order awarding benefits, and the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld it on appeal. The court reasoned that a reasoning mind could conclude the preponderance of the evidence, including testimony from the decedent's long-term primary care physician, supported the statutory requirements for a compensable injury under N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(10)(a)(3).
labor & employment
Lenton v. Lenton
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-06-30 · cited 7×
Lance Lenton appealed a two-year domestic violence protection order restraining him from contact with his separated wife Tina Lenton. The district court issued the order after a hearing, finding that Lance's statements during an argument over their child, including threats that Tina would "get what’s coming" to her and would not leave the property alive if she tried to retrieve items, along with evidence of past abuse, amounted to domestic violence by inflicting fear of imminent physical harm. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous under the preponderance standard and that the threats met the statutory requirement of fear of imminent rather than indefinite future harm.
family law
State v. Clark
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-06-10 · cited 9×
In State v. Clark, the defendant appealed criminal judgments convicting him of theft of property and issuing a check without an account, as well as an order revoking his probation in four prior cases and resentencing him to incarceration. Clark argued that he was denied due process because he had not properly entered guilty pleas to the new charges before being sentenced. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgments and revocation order, holding that the record as a whole clearly reflected Clark's knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty pleas, including his signed judgments stating he had pled guilty, his repeated statements of intent to plead guilty in open court, and the district court's advisements regarding waived rights and penalties under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11. The court distinguished prior precedent requiring explicit oral pleas, finding substantial compliance sufficient here.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Pixler
North Dakota Supreme Court · 2010-06-10 · cited 13×
The case involved Mathew Pixler, who was charged with ingesting a controlled substance and possessing drug paraphernalia and who pled guilty at his initial appearance before sentencing. Pixler later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his limited mental capacity, including mild mental retardation and low reading level, prevented him from entering a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea because he sought only to get out of jail. The district court denied the motion after finding that the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 had been met, that Pixler was competent, and that his responses during the plea showed understanding of the charges, penalties, and rights waived. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Pixler failed to prove a manifest injustice because the record contained no evidence of incompetence and he had not been declared legally incapable of making decisions.
criminal lawprocedure