on avoiding windfalls and economic waste , and the same rationale applies to damages for a breach of the duty to repair related to a lease . While the cost to repair generally would be the correct measure , that is only a place to start in determining the correct amount of damages . The Court stated the non-breaching party should not be awarded an amount that will put them in a better position than they would have been in if the breach never occurred . See , also , N . D . C . C . § 32-03-09 .
State v . Rodriguez , 2020 ND 261 . Filed 12-17-20 .
In this criminal sexual offense case , the Supreme Court held that to challenge a conviction on appeal , based on the sufficiency of the evidence at trial to convict , a defendant must first move for a judgment of acquittal under N . D . R . Crim . P . 29 , at trial .
State v . Foote , 2020 ND 266 . Filed 12-17-20 .
In this DUI case , the defendant argued before the district court that she was unconstitutionally seized and her motion to suppress evidence of her intoxicated condition behind the wheel should have been granted . The Supreme Court affirmed the defendant ’ s judgment of conviction of actual physical control and the district court ’ s denial of her motion to suppress . The Supreme Court held that a law enforcement officer is engaged in the role of community caretaker when the officer approaches a parked vehicle to inquire in a conversational manner whether the occupant is okay or needs assistance . A request that the suspect open the door or roll down the window in that situation is permissible , but the same would not be true of an order that he do so . Since the defendant was not seized in this situation in violation of her Fourth Amendment Rights , the evidence obtained by the police officer in this circumstance was admissible . The defendant ’ s motion to suppress was properly denied and her criminal conviction of actual physical control affirmed .
State v . Hirschkorn , 2020 ND 268 . Filed 12-17-20 .
The Supreme Court held that a district court ’ s decision to exclude evidence on the basis it lacks adequate foundation lies within its sound discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion that affected substantial rights . The proponent of evidence seeking to authenticate it under N . D . R . Evid . 901 ( a ) need not rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity or conclusively prove that evidence is what it purports to be , rather , the proponent must provide proof sufficient for a reasonable juror to find the evidence is what it purports to be .
20 THE GAVEL