State v. Conrad, 2017 ND 79

In Dec. 2015 the State charged Caroline Conrad with theft and exploitation of a vulnerable adult, alleging she used over $50,000 from a joint bank account owned by her elderly mother and Conrad.
The district court found probable cause at the preliminary hearing. At the court’s suggestion, Conrad moved to dismiss under North Dakota’s civil dispute doctrine.
The district court concluded the doctrine’s second prong (issues better suited to civil forum) did not apply, but the first prong did: there was a legitimate dispute over a unique civil-law issue—whether the mother made an inter vivos gift to Conrad (donative intent).
The court treated donative intent as a civil, property-law question and dismissed the criminal charges.
The State appealed, arguing the civil dispute doctrine was inapplicable and that North Dakota law permits prosecution of a joint-account holder who misuses funds that are the property of another under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-10(8).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the civil dispute doctrine bars prosecution when the defendant claims the alleged victim gifted the disputed funds	Civil (State): doctrine should not apply; statutory definition of “property of another” allows prosecution of joint-account misuse	Conrad: mother’s donative intent created an inter vivos gift; that raises a unique civil-law dispute better resolved in civil court	The doctrine does not apply; donative-intent disputes are factual, not the type of unique public-impact civil question the doctrine protects
Whether a joint-account holder can be charged for using funds allegedly belonging to the other co-owner	State: N.D.C.C. defines “property of another” to include property in which another has an interest the actor is not privileged to infringe, so joint holders can be charged	Conrad: mother’s account application and bank contract show intent to gift; acceptance occurred when Conrad used funds	A joint-account holder may be charged; whether a gift occurred is a factual issue for criminal trial, not a basis for dismissal under the civil dispute doctrine

State v. Herzig, 825 N.W.2d 235 (N.D. 2012) (applies civil dispute doctrine where disputed issue affects public use of a road)
State v. Curtis, 750 N.W.2d 438 (N.D. 2008) (rejects civil dispute doctrine where no legitimate civil-law dispute exists)
State v. Perreault, 638 N.W.2d 541 (N.D. 2002) (motion-to-dismiss standards; civil dispute doctrine not applicable to ordinary factual disputes over authorization)
State v. Trosen, 547 N.W.2d 735 (N.D. 1996) (refuses civil dispute doctrine for employee double-billing where pattern showed criminality)
State v. Brakke, 474 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1991) (applies civil dispute doctrine where cotenant crop-ownership question was unique and had broader legal impact)
State v. Meyer, 361 N.W.2d 221 (N.D. 1985) (seminal civil dispute doctrine decision; road-by-prescription question better resolved civilly)
State v. Cox, 325 N.W.2d 181 (N.D. 1982) (holds title to property does not preclude property from being property of another)
State v. Kaufman, 310 N.W.2d 709 (N.D. 1981) (explains State must prove another had an interest the actor was not privileged to infringe)