The Court stated the retention schedule in effect in 1990 specified a retention period of “ permanent ” for the register of criminal actions . The disposition of a criminal action is an essential part of the register of actions and must be filed and retained permanently in the register of actions . However , as the register of actions did not exist in the Zundel matter , the Court had to determine what the duty of a court is when the register of actions containing the disposition cannot be located .
The Supreme Court held that a court , including a municipal court , has a duty to replace or reconstruct the record . When there is no statutory procedure to do so , the court has discretion on how to restore the record . The Supreme Court held the first step is for the custodian to thoroughly search its records to attempt to locate the record . If the record cannot be located , then a reasonable attempt to reconstruct the record must be made which would include seeking copies from other public agencies , litigants , or others who may have copies . If no copy is located , parties may submit their own affidavits or documentary support , and the court may schedule a hearing to address the missing record and allow interested persons to present evidence . The Supreme Court held that , eventually , the court may make findings and enter an order regarding the missing record , detailing steps to locate and / or reconstruct the missing record and stating the outcome of that effort . This order is then kept as a substitute to the missing record . The Supreme Court then ordered the Jamestown Municipal Court to conduct further proceeding consistent with the Supreme Court ’ s opinion .
State v . Evitt , 2024 ND 77 . Filed 7 / 18 / 24 .
The state charged Evitt with hunting without a license and violating the Governor ’ s hunting proclamation . Evitt was convicted following a jury trial and appealed . During the district court case and on appeal , Evitt argued he is a “ living man ,” who is “ the beneficiary and not the trustee ” and a “ state national ” in “ his country , the Republic of North Dakota .” Evitt asserted the court lacked jurisdiction ; the state could not serve him with any papers ; the state violated his inherent right to hunt for subsistence ; he was denied his due process right to be tried by a jury of his peers , who were other “ state nationals ;” there was no victim in this case so there can be no crime ; and North Dakota “ is not a constitutional state of the union .” The Court noted Evitt advanced a number of arguments typical of those claiming to be “ sovereign citizens .” Generally speaking , sovereign citizens attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court and of the state , by differentiating between “ natural ” and “ artificial ” persons . By claiming to have divested themselves from their artificial personhood , sovereign citizens contend they can deny the court ’ s jurisdiction and reclaim funds held for them by the government in secret trust accounts .
In response to Evitt ’ s claims , the Court succinctly noted the sovereign citizen defense has no conceivable validity in American law . The Court found , regardless of Evitt ’ s beliefs about his citizenship , hunting without a license and violating the Governor ’ s hunting proclamation are crimes in North Dakota , the state has the authority to prosecute the crimes and the district court has the jurisdiction to hear such cases . The laws apply to Evitt as they apply to others , regardless of Evitt ’ s personal beliefs . The Court affirmed .
Morales v . Weatherford U . S ., L . P ., 2024 ND 155 . Filed 8 / 1 / 24 .
Morales appealed from the district court ’ s judgment granting summary judgment to defendant Weatherford dismissing his claims against it , holding Weatherford did not owe a duty of care to Morales . The Court affirmed the judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice .
In late December 2015 , Morales was walking , at night , along the right side of a roadway within the Weatherford distribution facility in Williston . Morales was an employee of Weatherford at the time he was injured . A vehicle driven by Junewal struck Morales , injuring him . In 2019 , Morales brought negligence and premises liability claims against Weatherford alleging it failed to install proper lighting and road signs on their premises , and failed to designate sidewalks near the road . The district court dismissed all of Morales ’ claims .
The Court began its analysis by noting the law on duty in the context of a negligence claim differs from the law on duty in the context of premises liability . The Court concluded Morales ’ claim was one for premises liability , not negligence . The difference between premises liability and negligence is that in premises liability , the defendant maintains a dangerous condition on its property , while in an ordinary negligence claim , the defendant causes the dangerous condition . Despite making claims for both premises liability and negligence , the Court held the complaint made clear Morales ’ claim was about the condition of Weatherford ’ s premises .
Morales argued Weatherford allowed dangerous conditions to exist on the premises , and had a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent his injury . The Court explained North Dakota has adopted the open and obvious danger doctrine , which provides a landowner ’ s duty to protect entrants on its property , or warn of dangerous conditions , is limited when the dangerous condition is known or obvious to the entrant . When conditions are known and obvious , they are not viewed as pitfalls , traps , or snares that make conditions dangerous for a person using ordinary care . The issue of whether a dangerous condition is open and obvious , thus limiting a property owner ’ s duty , is a question of fact , only becoming a question of law when reasonable minds could reach one conclusion .
Based on numerous undisputed facts regarding the condition of the roadway on Weatherford ’ s premises , the Court affirmed the district court ’ s conclusion the dangers were open and obvious , and Morales had conceded they posed a known and obvious danger to pedestrians . While North Dakota had not previously addressed the question of whether vehicles operating in close proximity to pedestrians are an obvious danger as a matter of law , the Court cited decisions from other states , and joined those states , in holding
FALL 2024 21