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 . Miller , 2024 ND 167 . Filed on 8 / 14 / 24 .
The state charged Miller with theft of property . An arrest warrant was issued . A law enforcement officer traveled to Oregon , apprehended Miller , and returned him to North Dakota . Miller pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement , which called for a term of imprisonment , various fees , and restitution in an amount to be determined by a later hearing . The court sentenced Miller in accordance with the plea agreement . Following the restitution hearing , the court granted the state ’ s request for restitution of $ 2,435 for the costs of extraditing Miller from Oregon , including the salary for the law enforcement officer for two days , airline tickets , hotel expenses , rental car expenses , meals , and parking fees .
On appeal , Miller argued the district court erred when it ordered restitution for extradition expenses because the state was not a victim of Miller ’ s crime , and the extradition costs are not related to his criminal conduct . The court noted victims have a constitutional right “ to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal or delinquent conduct .” Restitution must be limited to reasonable damages directly related to the offense or expenses sustained as a direct result of the defendant ’ s criminal action . The court noted in a prior case , a restitution award for extradition costs was affirmed because one of the crimes charged was bail jumping and the cost of extraditing that defendant was directly related to the criminal act of bail jumping . However , in Miller ’ s case , the extradition costs were not directly related to Miller ’ s criminal conduct of theft of property . As a result , the extradition costs for the salary of the officer and travel expenses were , at most , indirectly related to the criminal conduct Miller pleaded guilty to committing . The Court determined the indirect connection was not sufficient and the state was not entitled to restitution for these amounts . Further , the state could not seek these extradition amounts as costs of prosecution , in contravention to the terms of the plea agreement .
Zundel v . City of Jamestown , 2024 ND 162 . Filed on 8 / 14 / 24 .
Zundel attempted to purchase a firearm , but the purchase was denied due to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ( NICS ) revealing a 1990 simple assault charge in Jamestown Municipal Court . The NICS system showed the matter was continued for a year in order to allow Zundel to participate in counseling . Zundel appealed the NICS denial with the FBI . The FBI determined the 1990 charge was a potential prohibitor and instructed Zundel to contact the Jamestown Police Department to obtain the missing information .
Zundel attempted to obtain records from the Stutsman County Court , Jamestown Municipal Court , Jamestown Police Department , North Dakota BCI , and FBI , but none of the entities had any records which provided the matter had been closed . Zundel informed the FBI of his search and requested a favorable adjudication . The FBI denied the appeal on the basis the absence of a final disposition meant the potentially prohibiting record could not be nullified . Zundel then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jamestown Municipal Court to close his simple assault case .
The Supreme Court first held that retention of and access to court records is a matter of public interest warranting the exercise of the court ’ s original jurisdiction to consider Zundel ’ s petition . Jamestown argued the Court should not grant the writ because Zundel has an adequate remedy in federal law based on a case from Maryland Federal District Court . The Court stated , while it was possible the North Dakota Federal District Court may provide a remedy for the particular firearm transaction , a federal suit would not be an adequate alternative remedy to vindicate Zundel ’ s and the public ’ s clear legal right to access accurate court records .
Scott O . Diamond is a judicial referee for the East Central Judicial District of North Dakota .
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 .
20 THE GAVEL