State v. Erickson
795 N.W.2d 375
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Erickson, age 20, was observed with a cup containing alcohol at the North Dakota State Fair and arrested for unlawful consumption by a minor.
- The deputy determined Erickson had consumed about a quarter of the cup and confirmed his age as twenty.
- Erickson pleaded guilty; the State provided a factual basis for the charge, and the district court accepted the plea and requested a sentencing recommendation.
- The district court later realized it had used a criminal history report for the wrong individual and, on its own motion, dismissed the action.
- The State appealed; the district court’s dismissal was characterized as a dismissal or quashing of the information rather than an acquittal, affecting appealability.
- This Court vacated the district court’s order, held the dismissal was an abuse of discretion, and remanded for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s sua sponte dismissal is appealable | Erickson's case was dismissed with no factual resolution; appeal proper as quashing the information. | Dismissal was not an acquittal; procedural posture unclear; appeal not proper. | Appealable as a quashing of the information; district court erred. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing | Dismissal was improper as no adequate legal basis or alternatives were considered. | Court’s frustration over incorrect report justified dismissal as a sanction. | District court abused its discretion; dismissal improper. |
| Double Jeopardy implications of district court’s dismissal on remand | Dismissal post-plea implicates double jeopardy concerns. | Reinstating guilty plea upon remand avoids double jeopardy problems. | No double jeopardy violation; remand reinstates the guilty plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deutscher, 766 N.W.2d 442 (N.D. 2009) (appealability and double jeopardy considerations when post-verdict dismissals occur)
- State v. Flohr, 259 N.W.2d 293 (N.D. 1977) (dismissal as acquittal when it resolves elements of the offense)
- City of Wahpeton v. Desjarlais, 458 N.W.2d 330 (N.D. 1990) (distinguishes dismissal from acquittal and its impact on appeal)
- State v. Jackson, 701 N.W.2d 887 (N.D. 2005) (acquittal vs. dismissal analysis based on substance over form)
- City of Dickinson v. Kraft, 472 N.W.2d 441 (N.D. 1991) (considerations in assessing legal basis for dismissal)
- State v. Snellman, 586 N.W.2d 494 (N.D. 1998) (limits on sua sponte dismissals and requirement of notice and alternatives)
- State v. Tweeten, 679 N.W.2d 287 (N.D. 2004) (sanctions short of dismissal and need for opportunity to respond)
- 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) (remand and reinstatement principles following a ruling that does not require further fact-finding)