The North Dakota Supreme Court released several new opinions on January 29, 2026, covering a range of criminal, civil, and attorney disciplinary matters.
In State v. Vasquez, the court addressed Rule 11(a)(2) of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning conditional guilty pleas. The opinion states: “Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P., addresses conditional guilty pleas and requires: (1) the defendant, any defendant’s attorney, and the prosecuting attorney consent in writing to the conditional plea; (2) the court accept the conditional plea and enter an order; and (3) the judgment specify the plea is conditional.” The case was temporarily remanded for the district court to determine if the plea was conditional and to ensure that any order or judgment aligns with Rule 11(a)(2).
A series of decisions titled Disciplinary Board v. Spencer resulted in disbarment for a lawyer involved in multiple cases. The opinions state simply: “Lawyer disbarred.”
In Cull v. Cull, involving parenting responsibility issues, Justice Douglas Alan Bahr wrote: “The use of extended family members for childcare does not amount to a material change in circumstances unless it can be shown the arrangement has a detrimental effect on the children.” He further stated that parties must present competent evidence linking alleged problems to a parent’s actions and that isolated incidents do not automatically indicate a material change even if they involve potential harm to a child’s health.
State v. Lais involved an appeal related to child abuse or neglect charges. The court noted: “A criminal judgment is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).”
In State v. Olson, Justice Bahr emphasized procedural requirements for appellate briefs: “Appellate briefs must include references to the record and must cite to the record showing that issues were preserved for review. This Court will not consider arguments that are not adequately articulated, supported, and briefed, and will not engage in unassisted searches of the record for evidence to support a party’s position.” The opinion also clarifies rules about amending information before verdicts and applicability of certain statutory provisions.
Johnson v. State concerned post-conviction relief where an application denial was upheld: “A district court order denying an application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).”
Sanderson v. Cole clarified how civil actions are commenced under state law compared with federal procedures: “Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 3 a civil action is commenced by the service of a summons. Rule 3, N.D.R.Civ.P., allows the defendant to file the complaint in district court.” The opinion also discusses filing requirements under Rule 5 and harmless error analysis as well as immunity provisions for prosecutors performing official duties.
Williamson v. State also involved post-conviction relief with this summary affirmation: “A district court judgment denying application for postconviction relief is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6) and (7).”
State v. Luetzen examined firearm possession by felons and evidentiary standards regarding functionality of firearms: “Individuals who have been convicted of certain felony offenses are prohibited from owning a firearm or having one in possession… Caselaw has not established a clear or obvious legal rule as to what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove a handgun is able to expel or readily capable of expelling a projectile.”
Finally, State v. Golberg considered Fourth Amendment protections relating to home entry by police officers: “The Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house… Police may not enter a private enclosed entrance when there is a more direct alternative access designated for public use.”
These opinions collectively address procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, clarify standards for changes in child custody arrangements, affirm disciplinary measures against attorneys, outline evidentiary requirements in criminal law, reinforce civil procedure distinctions between state and federal courts, confirm prosecutorial immunity in some cases, and interpret constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
