959 N.W.2d
Volume 959 — North Western Reporter, Second Series
14 opinions
- 959 N.W.2d 225McCaulley v. C L Enters. (2021)
- 959 N.W.2d 235Porter v. Porter (2021)
- 959 N.W.2d 291Langley v. Langley (2021)
- 959 N.W.2d 563State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Bowers (2021)
- 959 N.W.2d 565State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Wickham (2021)
- 959 N.W.2d 568City of West Fargo v. Medbery (2021)
This Court does not weigh conflicting evidence or judge credibility of witnesses on appeal. We will affirm a district court's decision on a motion to suppress if there is competent evidence capable of supporting the court's findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. When a law enforcement officer approaches a parked vehicle to inquire in a conversational manner whether an occupant is okay or needs assistance, the officer is engaged in community caretaking. A community caretaking encounter can lead to a lawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment, provided the officer undertakes the caretaking encounter to aid a person in apparent need of assistance, and during the encounter the officer develops a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
- 959 N.W.2d 575Lizakowski v. Lizakowski (2021)
An amended divorce judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), (4), and (7), and double costs are awarded under N.D.R.App.P. 38.
- 959 N.W.2d 588Atkins v. State (2021)
A district court may summarily dismiss a successive application for post-conviction relief under N.D.C.C. § 23-32.1-09(1) on its own motion before the State answers when the issues raised in the application have been previously decided by this Court. An applicant for post-conviction relief is entitled to notice that the application may be summarily dismissed. A court's failure to provide notice prior to summary dismissal constitutes harmless error if a party fails to establish prejudice. A district court's error in dismissing an application for post-conviction relief based on an affirmative defense not pleaded by the State does not prejudice the applicant when the court had alternative statutory authority to summarily dismiss the application.
- 959 N.W.2d 819Bowmaker v. Rollman (2021)
- 959 N.W.2d 847Kruger v. Goossen (2021)
A district court's findings of fact after a bench trial are presumptively correct and will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous.
- 959 N.W.2d 855State v. Riggin (2021)
Upon the declaration of a state of emergency, the North Dakota Disaster Act of 1985 vests with the governor emergency management powers. The Legislature may delegate powers which are not exclusively legislative and which the Legislature cannot conveniently do because of the detailed nature. Where a party fails to provide supporting argument for an issue listed in the appellate brief, the party is deemed to have waived that issue.
- 959 N.W.2d 863Froistad v. State (2021)
When a motion following conviction is denominated as a motion under the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, the provisions of the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act, N.D.C.C. ch. 29-32.1, are applicable. Under N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12, an application for postconviction relief may be denied on the ground that the same claim or claims were fully and finally determined in a previous proceeding, or when the applicant presents a claim for relief which the applicant inexcusably failed to raise either in a proceeding leading to judgment of conviction and sentence or in a previous postconviction proceeding.
- 959 N.W.2d 883State v. Louser (2021)
A district court's role to approve or reject amendments to criminal charges does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. A district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion to amend a criminal charge and rejected a plea agreement. The court followed the legislative directive, explained why the State negotiated the agreement, and explained the court's reasons for rejecting it.
- 959 N.W.2d 891Pemberton v. State (2021)
To be convicted of attempted murder, the accused must have an intent to kill. Attempted "knowing" murder under N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-06-01 and 12.1-16-01(1)(a) is a non-cognizable offense. A federal constitutional error is harmless if we are convinced the error did not contribute to the verdict. Our determination of whether an error is harmless looks at the effect of the error on this jury, rather than speculating whether a hypothetical jury would convict the defendant absent the error. An erroneous jury instruction informing the jury that it could convict a defendant of a non-cognizable offense would not be cured by an appellate court's determination that the record evidence unmistakably established guilt of a cognizable offense.