Blackcloud v. State, 907 N.W.2d 758

In April 2014 Martin Blackcloud was convicted of gross sexual imposition involving his girlfriend’s daughter; this Court summarily affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
Blackcloud filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application in November 2016 asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
His PCR allegations included: counsel’s failure to file a notice of alibi or object to the charging information’s specificity; inadequate investigation and cross-examination regarding possible DNA contamination and the theory that the victim and her mother shared clothing; and failure to impeach or present evidence of the mother’s weight gain.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing where Blackcloud and his trial counsel testified, and denied relief, finding the charging document adequate and counsel’s performance not deficient.
On appeal Blackcloud also challenged the district court’s exclusion of a photograph of the victim’s mother offered at the PCR hearing as irrelevant.
The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding counsel’s investigation and trial decisions were reasonable and the excluded photograph was not relevant to the claim of ineffective assistance because counsel was unaware of it before trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for inadequate investigation re: mother’s weight gain and clothing-sharing theory	Counsel failed to investigate or obtain evidence (photo) showing mother’s weight gain and clothing-sharing, which could explain Blackcloud’s DNA on victim	Counsel reasonably investigated; trial counsel adequately questioned the mother at trial and was unaware of the photo or contamination theory beforehand	Denied — counsel’s investigation and decisions were objectively reasonable; no deficient performance shown
Ineffective assistance for failure to file alibi notice / charging specificity	Failure to file notice of alibi and lack of specificity in charging information deprived defense	Charging document was sufficiently specific; alibi claim was addressed on direct appeal and summary affirmance stands	Denied — charging information adequate; prior direct-appeal resolution undermines claim
Exclusion of photograph at PCR hearing	Photo of mother (showing weight gain) was relevant and district court abused discretion by excluding it	Photo irrelevant to counsel’s performance because counsel was unaware of it pretrial; evidence would not show counsel was ineffective	Denied — no abuse of discretion; photo not relevant to ineffective-assistance claim

Peterka v. State, 864 N.W.2d 745 (N.D. 2015) (discusses Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance and Strickland standard in North Dakota)
Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1972) (right to counsel at critical stages)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance claims)
Heckelsmiller v. State, 687 N.W.2d 454 (N.D. 2004) (courts may dispose of Strickland claims on prejudice prong)
Flanagan v. State, 712 N.W.2d 602 (N.D. 2006) (post-conviction proceedings are civil and governed by civil rules)
Klose v. State, 705 N.W.2d 809 (N.D. 2005) (standard of review for mixed questions in ineffective assistance claims)
Roe v. State, 891 N.W.2d 745 (N.D. 2017) (summarizes standard of review and law applicable to PCR ineffective-assistance claims)
Garcia v. State, 678 N.W.2d 568 (N.D. 2004) (courts defer to counsel’s investigative judgments)
State v. Azure, 899 N.W.2d 294 (N.D. 2017) (district court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Vandermeer, 843 N.W.2d 686 (N.D. 2014) (standard for overturning evidentiary rulings)