The North Dakota Supreme Court issued several new opinions on January 15, 2026, addressing a range of civil and criminal matters.
In State v. Krall, the court reaffirmed that when reviewing an appeal challenging the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal conviction, only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict are considered. The court stated: “A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosecution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor, no rational fact finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The opinion also clarified that convictions may be based solely on circumstantial evidence if it is strong enough for a fact finder to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jury instructions must be reviewed as a whole rather than selectively, and errors are grounds for reversal only if they affect substantial rights.
In Ziemann v. Grosz, the justices addressed compliance with appellate mandates by lower courts. According to their decision: “The mandate rule, a more specific application of law of the case, requires the district court to follow pronouncements of an appellate court on legal issues in subsequent proceedings of the case and to carry the appellate court’s mandate into effect according to its terms.” The appellate court retains authority over whether its directives have been properly followed after remand.
Gum v. Muddy Boyz Drywall involved questions about appeals procedures. Justice Bahr wrote: “A party does not have a right to appeal if there is no final judgment or proper N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification.”
Weigel et al. v. Albertson examined attorney disqualification orders. Justice Tufte noted that such orders are not directly appealable but may be reviewed through supervisory jurisdiction because litigants have a protected interest in their chosen counsel. The opinion explained criteria for determining lawyer-client relationships and identified when legal errors or harmless errors occur regarding attorney disqualification.
Rangel v. State dealt with post-conviction relief applications dismissed through summary disposition, which were summarily affirmed under relevant procedural rules: “An order granting a motion for summary disposition of postconviction relief applications is summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).”
State v. Mogren focused on search-and-seizure issues related to containers previously opened by authorities and consent entries by law enforcement into homes: “When a container has been previously opened by a government agent under lawful authority, and there is no substantial likelihood its contents have changed, a warrantless search of that container by law enforcement does not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8 of the North Dakota Constitution.”
Pederson v. State discussed ineffective assistance of counsel claims in post-conviction relief cases and subject matter jurisdiction challenges at any stage: “Ineffective assistance of counsel claims ordinarily are unsuited for summary disposition and denial without an evidentiary hearing.” Additionally: “A judge presented with a motion for disqualification must determine whether a reasonable person could, on the basis of all facts, reasonably question the judge’s impartiality.”
These decisions provide guidance on topics ranging from criminal procedure standards to civil litigation processes before North Dakota courts.
