New Opinions: April 10

K.L.T., et al. v. NDDHHS 2025 ND 76
Docket No.: 20240299
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Certified Question of Law
Author: Jensen, Jon J.

 View Opinion

Highlight: The Court declined to answer the following certified question of law: "Is an unmarried couple able [to] adopt children under N.D.C.C. § 14-15-03(2)?"

Rule 47.1 of the North Dakota Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize the Court to answer questions of law certified by a state district court when two conditions are met: (A) there is a question of law involved in the proceeding that is determinative of the proceeding; and (B) it appears to the district court that there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court.

When the district court has not halted proceedings, but rather has concluded them by dismissing the complaint, the certification procedure does not apply.

State v. Allman 2025 ND 75
Docket No.: 20240250
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Terrorizing
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

 View Opinion

Highlight: Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52, any error, defect, irregularity or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. The harmless error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant's guilt or innocence and promotes respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial.

Criminal defendants are presumed fit to stand trial. A defendant that lacks fitness to proceed cannot be tried, convicted, or sentenced.

Parties seeking a court order must make a motion. When a defendant is represented by counsel, the defendant generally has no authority to file pro se motions, and the court should not consider them.

A district court need give credit toward only one of the consecutive terms of imprisonment it imposes.

A speedy trial claim is evaluated under the four-part test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), considering the (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) proper assertion of the right, and (4) actual prejudice to the accused.

WSI v. Jones, et al. 2025 ND 74
Docket No.: 20240283
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Workers Compensation
Author: Crothers, Daniel John

 View Opinion

Highlight: Title 65, N.D.C.C., does not specify where Workforce Safety and Insurance may appeal an administrative decision. Under N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(3)(a), when no jurisdiction is designated by another law, appeals from administrative orders may be taken (1) to the district court of the county in which the hearing or part thereof was held, or (2) if there was no formal hearing, an appeal may be taken to the district court of Burleigh County.

State v. Ali 2025 ND 73
Docket No.: 20240281
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Misc. Felony
Author: Bahr, Douglas Alan

 View Opinion

Highlight: This Court cannot discern a guilty plea is conditional when the judgment does not show the plea was conditional, the record does not show an order accepting the conditional plea, and there is no transcript showing the guilty plea was conditional or that the district court consented to the entry of a conditional guilty plea.

Bauer v. Job Service, et al. 2025 ND 72
Docket No.: 20250003
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Administrative - Unemployment/Job Service
Author: Per Curiam

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court judgment affirming a Job Service of North Dakota decision is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5).

State v. Krebs 2025 ND 71
Docket No.: 20240355
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - DUI/DUS/APC
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

 View Opinion

Highlight: The State's appeal from a district court's judgment of acquittal entered after the court granted the defendant's renewed N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 motion is dismissed.

The court's ruling that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction is a true judgment of acquittal from which the State is not permitted to appeal.

The Court exercises its authority to issue supervisory writs rarely and cautiously, and only to rectify errors and prevent injustice in extraordinary cases when no adequate alternative exists.

The fact that the State may be unable to appeal the district court's ruling does not necessarily create extraordinary circumstances justifying supervisory jurisdiction.

State v. Lyons 2025 ND 70
Docket No.: 20240326
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Criminal - Sexual Offense
Author: Per Curiam

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court order denying a N.D.R.Crim.P. 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).

Shively v. Shively 2025 ND 69
Docket No.: 20240284
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court's judgment is reversed and remanded for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the district court's award of primary residential responsibility and parenting time, and distribution of property.

A district court's findings of fact must be stated with sufficient specificity to enable a reviewing court to understand the factual basis for its decisions.

In cases where a party has requested equal parental responsibility, and particularly where the court finds the parties are able to effectively communicate with each other, the district court must consider equal residential responsibility
and articulate its reasoning sufficiently for appellate review.

A district court's failure to explain the absence of extended summer parenting time is error, requiring remand for reconsideration and a reasoned explanation of the court's decision.

While the marital home need not be irrevocably set aside to an heir, we have also explained that inherited property should be set aside to the heir where fairly possible.

Kinden v. Kinden, et al. 2025 ND 68
Docket No.: 20240226
Filing Date: 4/10/2025
Case Type: Appeal - Civil - Divorce
Author: Tufte, Jerod E.

 View Opinion

Highlight: A district court's order and judgment awarding primary residential responsibility is affirmed.

Section 14-09-06.6, N.D.C.C., governs modifications of primary residential responsibility. When a party moves to modify a judgment awarding joint residential responsibility, N.D.C.C. § 14-09-06.6 does not apply. The district court must instead make an original determination regarding primary residential responsibility.

We will not retry a primary residential responsibility case or substitute our judgment for a district court's initial primary residential responsibility decision merely because we might have reached a different result. A choice between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous, and our deferential review is especially applicable for a difficult primary residential responsibility decision involving two fit parents.