Dale V. Sandstrom

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involves Christopher Midgett's appeal from a district court order denying his petition for discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous individual under North Dakota law. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the denial, holding that the State met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Midgett remains a sexually dangerous individual who has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The court relied on expert testimony and evidence of Midgett's ongoing impulsive conduct in the structured setting of the State Hospital, which indicated uncertainty about his ability to manage sexual urges outside a restrictive environment. This satisfied both the statutory criteria and the substantive due process requirement from Kansas v. Crane that the commitment distinguish dangerous sexual offenders from typical recidivists.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved a dispute among three brothers over how to partition approximately 2,160 acres of their deceased mother's ranch and farmland in McKenzie County, which passed intestate after her 2002 death. The brothers, acting as personal representatives, petitioned for partition under North Dakota law, presenting conflicting proposals through appointed referees, with LeRoy Loomer seeking a division that would support his ongoing ranching operation and his brothers favoring equal tracts that could support commercial hunting. The district court adopted one referee's report dividing the land into three roughly equal 720-acre tracts and ordered distribution accordingly. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the partition findings were not clearly erroneous because they were supported by evidence and considered relevant factors such as land character and owner situations, and that denial of reconsideration motions was not an abuse of discretion.

propertyfamily law

The case involved the North Dakota Attorney General suing Crosslands, Inc., a nonprofit corporation, for violating the state's corporate farming law by purchasing a 949-acre tract of rural land in Griggs County without prior gubernatorial approval for the purpose of preserving wildlife habitat. The district court ordered divestiture of only part of the land after a piecemeal analysis of individual parcels and application of a business purpose exception, allowing Crosslands to retain some farmland and non-farmland portions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the entire tract must be treated as a single unit and divested because its predominant use and nature was as farmland or ranchland, with over 72 percent qualifying as such. The court reasoned that the corporate farming law prohibits corporate ownership of land whose primary character is agricultural, rendering the business purpose exception inapplicable once the whole tract was classified accordingly.

business & regulatorypropertyenvironment

In Dupay v. Dupay, Matthew Dupay appealed a district court order that largely denied his motion to reduce his child support payments to his former spouse, Greta Powell, for their child. The case centered on a 2002 personal injury settlement of $600,000 (with Dupay receiving about $250,000 net), which an earlier court ruling had prorated as adding $1,882 per month to his income for 133 months to calculate support; Dupay argued this "windfall" had ended because the funds were spent and he was unemployed. The district court lowered his obligation slightly due to a layoff but maintained the settlement imputation, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dupay continued to benefit from the settlement through assets like a home and investments, and that spending the proceeds did not justify reducing support. The core reasoning was that treating the settlement as exhausted by expenditure would incentivize obligors to dissipate funds to lower obligations, and the prior allocation of the benefit period was not shown to be erroneous.

family law

The case concerned whether the district court had jurisdiction over a class B misdemeanor charge of driving while under suspension under state law when the offense occurred within city limits and was cited by a highway patrol officer. The district court dismissed the charge without prejudice, concluding that municipal court was the proper venue. The State petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ after its appeal was untimely. The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the district court had jurisdiction over the state-law violation. The core reasoning focused on the highway patrol officer's statewide enforcement authority and the distinction between state statutes and local ordinances in determining court jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved eight members of the Committee for Understanding and Respect suing the North Dakota State Board of Higher Education to enforce a settlement agreement from a prior lawsuit between the Board, the University of North Dakota, and the NCAA regarding the use of the "Fighting Sioux" nickname and logo. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the Board from retiring the nickname before November 30, 2010, arguing that the agreement required tribal approval from the Spirit Lake Tribe and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe during that period. The district court dismissed the action, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain language of the settlement agreement allowed the Board to transition to a new nickname at any time during the approval period and did not require continued use until the end of that period or delegate ultimate authority to the tribes.

civil rightsprocedure

Charles Odom appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief, claiming his attorneys were ineffective for failing to obtain a transcript of the 2005 probable cause hearing at which an officer gave some inaccurate testimony supporting drug charges against him. The district court denied relief after finding the attorneys' representation did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the decision not to request the transcript fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, as supported by testimony from other criminal defense attorneys and the presence of other accurate testimony establishing probable cause. Because Odom failed to meet the first prong of the ineffective assistance test, the court did not reach the issue of prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Virgil Laib appealed a district court order denying his motion for an award of past child support for the period when he had custody of the parties' three children following the 2005 divorce judgment. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial, ruling that the claim was barred by res judicata because Virgil had the opportunity to raise the child support issue in his prior 2007 appeal but did not do so, and the matter had been resolved by final judgment in proceedings between the same parties. The court explained that res judicata prohibits relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised earlier, and noted that Virgil's 2007 appeal should have addressed support obligations for the entire period of his custody.

family law

In State v. Loh, the defendant was charged with two counts of delivering methamphetamine after selling the drug to a confidential informant during recorded conversations in the informant's vehicle; police used an audio transmitting device without a warrant. Loh moved to suppress the recordings, arguing they violated his privacy rights under the North Dakota and U.S. Constitutions, and objected to the 20-year mandatory minimum sentences based on his prior drug convictions, claiming one prior offense should not count for enhancement. The district court denied the suppression motions and imposed the sentences, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that Loh had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the informant's car during the drug sales and that the informant's consent allowed the recordings without a warrant under state law. It also held that precedent interpreting the sentencing statute remained binding, as the legislature had not amended it to alter that interpretation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Davis v. Davis, a divorced father who had paid monthly child support sued the mother to recover an alleged overpayment after the children received a lump-sum Social Security disability benefit covering the same period, which the father claimed should be credited against his obligation under state guidelines. The district court dismissed the action, finding no reimbursement was required because the funds benefited the children. The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding that N.D. Admin. Code § 75-02-04.1-02(11) mandates crediting the benefits against the support owed for that timeframe and therefore requires the custodial parent to reimburse the excess amount paid. The majority reasoned that the guidelines create an explicit mechanism for applying such payments to reduce or offset the obligor's duty, producing an overpayment that must be returned.

family law

This case involved a divorce action between Ronald and Jill Parisien after a 33-year marriage, in which the district court granted the divorce on grounds including irreconcilable differences and awarded Jill spousal support along with a larger share of the marital property. Ronald appealed, arguing the permanent spousal support award of $1,500 per month for two years followed by $1,250 per month was erroneous given the property division, his ability to pay, and other factors. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the award, holding that the district court properly applied the Ruff-Fischer guidelines by weighing the parties' ages, earning capacities ($24,000 for Jill versus over $63,000 for Ronald), health issues, the marriage's duration and misconduct by Ronald, and the need to consider property distribution and support together rather than in isolation. The court found permanent support appropriate because Jill had reached her maximum earning potential and could not be rehabilitated to self-sufficiency at her age, while Ronald had the means to pay.

family law

This case involves a divorce between Katherine and Robert Edwards, where Robert, the stepfather of Katherine's daughter K.A.E. from a prior relationship, was awarded visitation and certain legal custody rights over the child by the district court as part of the divorce proceedings. Katherine appealed, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction over a non-biological child in a divorce action and failed to make required findings that Robert was a psychological parent or that exceptional circumstances existed to prevent serious detriment to the child. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding the visitation rights and related communication duties but reversing the award of decisionmaking authority on major issues like education, health care, and religious training. The court reasoned that while visitation could be granted under the circumstances, legal custody rights to a third party require specific findings of exceptional circumstances justifying interference with a natural parent's paramount rights.

family law

The case involved Elijah Addai's appeal from a murder conviction after a jury found him guilty of stabbing David Delonais during a fight that began at an apartment gathering in Fargo. Addai challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle stop, the eyewitness identification by two newspaper carriers, the denial of a motion to dismiss for discovery issues, and the sufficiency of the evidence. The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion given the timing, location, and description of a fleeing suspect, that the showup identification was not unnecessarily suggestive and was reliable under the circumstances, that there were no prejudicial discovery violations, and that the evidence including DNA, witness accounts, and causation principles was sufficient to support the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Lance Berger's petition to change the surname of his seven-year-old son, K.F., from the mother's maiden name to Berger, after the parents (who never married) established paternity and the mother remarried and changed her own surname. The district court denied the petition following a hearing, concluding that Berger had not shown proper and reasonable cause for the change and that it would not serve the child's best interests. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a name-change petition for a minor requires consideration of the child's best interests, that the district court's best-interests findings were not clearly erroneous, and that the overall decision was not an abuse of discretion. The court also rejected Berger's procedural challenges to the timeliness of the mother's affidavits and related appendix filings. A dissent argued that the denial was an abuse of discretion and that the child's best interests favored the name change.

family lawprocedure