State v. Kopperud, 2015 ND 124

Kopperud charged with reckless driving, a class B misdemeanor.
A jury trial was scheduled for November 17, 2014.
Kopperud failed to appear; jurors were dismissed and a bench warrant issued.
Kopperud was arrested the following day.
On December 9, 2014 Kopperud pled guilty to reckless driving under a plea agreement.
The district court granted the State's motion to reimburse $1,317.70 for jury expenses incurred for the November 17 trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 23.1 bars jury expenses in a criminal case.	State argues no chilling effect; expenses are not permitted to be assessed.	Kopperud contends Rule 23.1 prohibits jury expenses in criminal cases.	Yes; jury expenses may not be assessed in a criminal case.
Whether the district court had authority to require reimbursement as a sanction.	State relies on inherent contempt power to sanction; seeks reimbursement.	No statutory or proper authority to sanction via jury expenses.	Authority to sanction via jury expenses not proper; required reimbursement amount vacated.
Whether court costs or administration fees could justify the amount assessed.	Kopperud acknowledges potential court administration fee; argues it is separate.	Rule 23.1 controls; jury costs cannot be assessed; statute caps administration fee only.	Rule 23.1 controls; jury costs cannot be assessed; administration fee framework does not authorize jury costs.

State v. Chacano, 2012 ND 113 (2012) (statutory interpretation; rule 23.1 analysis guidance)
State v. Marinucci, 321 N.W.2d 462 (ND 1982) (costs as reasonable prosecution costs; jury expenses not included)
State v. Stokes, 243 N.W.2d 372 (ND 1976) (inherent contempt power; limits on sanctions)
Molitor v. Molitor, 2006 ND 163 (ND 2006) (statutory interpretation; briefing adequacy against issues)