North Dakota Supreme Court Highlights
By Scott O . Diamond , Joshua A . Swanson , and Ian McLean
Authors ’ Note and Caveat : The following cases of interest were recently decided by the North Dakota Supreme Court . Because the following contains the authors ’ summary of the decisions , the reader is encouraged to read the entire published decision to determine its precedential value , if any , in any given case .
State v . Knight , 2023 ND 130 . Filed 7 / 19 / 23 .
Knight was charged with two counts of gross sexual imposition . During deliberations , the jury sent a note which showed the numerical division of both counts being deadlocked at 8 – 4 and 9 – 3 . In response , the judge informed the jury : “ I ’ m going to send you back into the jury room . You ’ ve got to continue to work to try and get to unanimous verdicts . You might think it ’ s a long time , but you had a day plus testimony working and it hasn ’ t been that long . So , I need you to go back , kind of review the evidence again , and try and come to unanimous verdicts and then we ’ ll move from there . So , that ’ s all I ’ m going to say . So , back to work is what I ’ m going to say .” The jury resumed deliberations and eventually returned one verdict of guilty , but failed to reach a verdict on the other count .
Following trial , Knight ’ s attorneys spoke with the jurors . Juror No . 6 stated it was her understanding the court ’ s comments meant the jury had no choice but to reach a unanimous verdict , and , had she known they could remain deadlocked on both counts , the jurors would have done so . Knight filed a motion for a new trial . The district court denied the motion , ruling it could not consider the declaration of the juror because N . D . R . Ev . 606 ( b )( 1 ) does not allow the court to consider affidavits or declarations from jurors pertaining to the jurors ’ mental process during deliberations .
On appeal , Knight argued the district court ’ s statements coerced the jury into rendering a guilty verdict . The Supreme Court affirmed . The Court noted the district court should have qualified its Allen charge with a cautionary instruction the jurors not abandon their honest convictions in trying to reach a verdict , however , considering the totality of the factors , the judge ’ s statements did not show coercion .
The Court also found the district court properly excluded consideration of the statement of Juror No . 6 . Under Rule 606 ( b ) ( 2 ), it is improper for a court to consider a juror ’ s statements relative to the mental processes or reasoning of the jurors in arriving at a decision . The Court acknowledged “ this outcome may seem harsh ” given the certainty of the juror ’ s statement , however , the court determined strong policy considerations required a strict interpretation of the rule .
DOCR v . Louser , et al ., 2023 ND 143 . Filed 8 / 2 / 2023 .
A criminal defendant pled guilty to a class B misdemeanor . The district court sentenced the defendant to suspended jail time and to 360 days of supervised probation and specifically ordered the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations ( DOCR ) to supervise the probation . The DOCR believed it lacked the statutory authority to supervise probation when the only underlying criminal conviction is a class B misdemeanor , based on N . D . C . C . § 12.1- 32-07 ( 1 ), which states for class B misdemeanors , “ the court may place the defendant under the supervision and management of a community corrections program other than the department of corrections and rehabilitation .” As a result , the DOCR petitioned the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ seeking relief from the requirement of actively monitoring the probation .
The Supreme Court denied the supervisory writ . The Supreme Court determined the DOCR ’ s authority to supervise probation does not come from N . D . C . C . § 12.1-32-07 ( 1 ), but rather comes from the statutes which created the DOCR and which state the DOCR is responsible for creation of correctional facilities and parole and probation departments . Because the defendant met the statutory definitions of “ offender ” and “ probationer ” and the DOCR was ordered by the district court to supervise the probation , the DOCR had the authority to supervise the defendant . However , the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the district court was restricted under N . D . C . C . § 12.1-32-07 ( 1 ) from directing the DOCR to supervise class B misdemeanors , as that issue could be challenged by individual defendants through the normal appeal process and , therefore , did not need to be decided as part of a petition for a supervisory writ .
Zavanna , LLC v . GADECO , LLC , 2023 ND 142 . Filed 8 / 2 / 23 .
The Supreme Court affirmed the district court quieting title in favor of Zavanna after a bench trial , concluding the district court did not err in determining that GADECO and Continental Resources ’ ( the defendants ) leases terminated when production ceased and the
Scott O . Diamond is the owner of Diamond Law Firm in Fargo where he practices municipal law , criminal law , and general litigation .
Joshua A . Swanson is a shareholder at Vogel Law Firm in Fargo where he practices energy law , construction and property law , and general litigation .
Ian McLean is a shareholder at Serkland Law Firm in Fargo where he practices in commercial litigation , municipal and education law , and criminal law .
18 THE GAVEL