The North Dakota Supreme Court released several opinions on September 12, 2024, covering a range of legal issues from criminal competency to special assessments by cities.
In "State v. Rolland" (Docket No.: 20230313), Justice Daniel John Crothers emphasized that due process prohibits the prosecution of a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. The opinion clarified that a defendant is deemed incompetent if they lack sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or fail to have both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against them. The burden falls on the prosecution to prove competence by a preponderance of evidence. Additionally, the fifteen-day deadline for mental health examinations under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-04-07 begins only upon receipt of necessary materials and notice served upon the tier 1a mental health professional.
In "Senske Rentals v. City of Grand Forks" (Docket No.: 20230397), Justice Jerod E. Tufte addressed statutory requirements for special assessments by cities. He noted that statutes granting such powers must be strictly construed and conditions must be specifically observed and performed. Section 40-23-07, N.D.C.C., mandates an independent determination of special benefits to each lot without considering project costs to ensure assessments do not exceed benefits received by each lot. The court also overruled Holter v. City of Mandan, asserting it misinterpreted N.D.C.C § 40-23-07 regarding assessment formulas.
"Mitzel, et al. v Vogel Law Firm, et al." (Docket No.: 20230372) involved allegations of legal malpractice against attorneys at Vogel Law Firm. Justice Douglas Alan Bahr outlined that plaintiffs in such cases must establish an attorney-client relationship, duty owed by the attorney, breach of said duty, and damages caused by this breach. Plaintiffs must show that performance would have benefitted them and provide some factual basis for determining damages.
In "Interest of W.C.M." (Docket No.: 20240213), per curiam affirmed a district court order requiring continued hospitalization under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2).
Lastly, in "State v Littlebird" (Docket No.: 20240050), per curiam summarily affirmed a criminal judgment where the defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault following jury deliberation under N.D.R.App.P 35.1(a)(2).