Interest of G.L.D.
2011 ND 52
N.D.2011Background
- Erickson, age 20, attended a concert in Minot and was escorted for suspected alcohol by a minor.
- Deputy determined the cup contained alcohol and Erickson admitted it was about half full when received; cup later judged a quarter full.
- Erickson pleaded guilty to unlawful consumption of alcohol by a minor; district court accepted the plea and sought a sentencing recommendation.
- A misfiled criminal history report led the district court to dismiss the action on its own motion, without a stated legal basis or prior notice.
- The district court’s sua sponte dismissal occurred after the State objected; the State appealed, contending the dismissal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the district court’s sua sponte dismissal appealable? | State relied on § 29-28-07(1) as basis for appeal; dismissal quashing information is appealable. | Erickson contends dismissal was acquittal or non-appealable since no factual resolution. | Dismissal appealable; not a pure acquittal. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without notice or opportunity to respond? | State’s error warranted dismissal to safeguard interests and court integrity. | Dismissal was a proportionate response to prosecutorial error and to protect due process. | District court abused its discretion by dismissing sua sponte without notice or alternatives. |
| Does the dismissal raise Double Jeopardy concerns after a guilty plea? | Dismissal after a guilty plea could undermine judgment and require remedy. | Remand and reinstatement of plea avoids jeopardy concerns; no multiple punishments. | No Double Jeopardy violation; remand for sentencing reinstates the guilty plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deutscher, 2009 ND 98 (N.D. 2009) (appealability and acquittal distinctions; post-verdict dismissal analyzed)
- State v. Jackson, 2005 ND 137 (N.D. 2005) (acquittal versus dismissal analysis)
- State v. Flohr, 259 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 1977) (dismissal constitutes acquittal if resolves factual elements)
- City of Wahpeton v. Desjarlais, 458 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1990) (narrowing grounds for dismissal and require proper basis)
- City of Dickinson v. Kraft, 472 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1991) (dismissal analysis in context of charges)
- State v. Snellman, 1998 ND 200 (N.D. 1998) (emphasizes notice and least drastic sanctions before dismissal)
- State v. Tweeten, 2004 ND 90 (N.D. 2004) (discusses prosecutorial abuse and sanctions)
- State v. Meyer, 494 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 1992) (elements-based analysis in criminal dismissals)
- United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1975) (double jeopardy considerations in post-verdict rulings)
- United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (government appeal after guilty finding reinstates finding)