Volume 956 — North Western Reporter, Second Series

A settlement agreement is a contract between parties, and thus contract law applies. An agreement to transfer oil interests for valuable consideration is an agreement for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein, under the statute of frauds, N.D.C.C. § 9-06-04(3). Subsection 9-06-04(3), N.D.C.C., provides that an agreement for the sale of real property, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid unless the authority of the agent is in writing subscribed by the party sought to be charged. To take a contract out of the statute of frauds, the party seeking to enforce the oral contract must establish part performance that is not only consistent with, but that is consistent only with, the existence of the alleged oral contract. Cases accepting the doctrine of part performance have recognized three major categories of acts by the purchaser that may make an oral contract enforceable: paying the contract price, taking possession of the property, and making improvements. A party missing out on the benefit of their contractual bargain does not promote an injustice or perpetrate a fraud as to require an agreement to be removed from the statute of frauds.

Any attempt by the trial court to amend or modify a final judgment is void unless it is made upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 8, of the North Dakota Constitution protect individuals in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures. But a warrantless search is not unreasonable if the search of the home falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. When no exception exists, any evidence seized is inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and must be suppressed.

Courts possess broad power to control their courtrooms, minimize disruptive behavior, and maintain security. Restricting movement in and out of a courtroom during testimony of a child witness as an attempt to minimize disruptions did not constitute a closure but instead was within the court's managerial authority.

A district court should not automatically approve public trial waivers without considering the broader interests in open courts and public trials by conducting pre-closure Waller analysis. A defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial may be waived if the record reflects a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. A defendant's failure to object or acquiescence to a trial closure without a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver will be reviewed on appeal as a forfeited error subject only to obvious error review. A district court may conduct proceedings in chambers in some circumstances, including temporary use of a courtroom as if in chambers. But it is the type of proceeding and not the location of the proceeding that determines the need for the Waller analysis. Jury selection, including proceedings relating to juror questionnaires and challenges for cause, are part of the criminal trial and generally must be held in open court consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. A court's closure of trial proceedings without having obtained a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver and without having considered the Waller factors is obvious error. A speculative risk to a witness's counseling relationship with the victim is insufficient standing alone to satisfy the Waller requirement for an overriding interest.