9 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2011See Morris, 331 N.W.2d at 54 ; see also Demarais, at ¶ 8. [¶ 16] In most cases involving possession of drug paraphernalia, intent to use the paraphernalia for the purpose of ingesting, preparing, or storing a controlled substance must be proven by circumstantial evidence. 2011See Morris , 331 N.W.2d at 54 ; see also Demarais , at ¶ 8. [¶16] In most cases involving possession of drug paraphernalia, intent to use the paraphernalia for the purpose of ingesting, preparing, or storing a controlled substance must be proven by circumstantial evidence. | 2 | 2 |
In Interest of MDNgreen2 sentences2003The child was fourteen years of age or more at the time of the alleged conduct and the court determines that there is probable cause to believe the child committed the alleged delinquent act and the delinquent act involves the offense of ... the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 19-03.1-23, except for the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver marijuana in an amount less than one pound [.45 kilograms][.] A juvenile judge’s authority t 2003The child was fourteen years of age or more at the time of the alleged conduct and the court determines that there is probable cause to believe the child committed the alleged delinquent act and the delinquent act involves the offense of ... the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 19-03.1-23, except for the manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to manufacture or deliver marijuana in an amount less than one pound [.45 kilograms][.] A juvenile judge's authority t | 2 | 2 |
State v. North Dakota Education Ass'ngreen1 sentence1994Compare N.D.C.C. § 12.1-02-02 (“For the purposes of this ti-tle_”) relating to culpability; State v. North Dakota Ed. Ass’n, 262 N.W.2d 731, 734 (N.D.1978) (“Section 12.1-02-02, N.D.C.C., is a part of a recodified criminal code, and applies only to that code.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nehringgreen1 sentence1994See e.g., State v. Nehring, 509 N.W.2d 42 (N.D.1993) (delivery of a controlled substance in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(l)(b)); State v. Mathisen, 356 N.W.2d 129 (N.D.1984) (issuing cheeks without sufficient funds in violation of N.D.C.C. § 6-08-16); State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 30 (N.D.1984) (removing a child from the State contrary to a custody decree in violation of N.D.C.C. § 14-14-22.1). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pemberton
green
2 sentences2022We have said we exercise our discretion “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 9 , 930 N.W.2d 125 . 5 B [¶13] Count three of the amended information charged Dahl with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-03(1), which at the time of the alleged offense provided: A person may not use or possess with intent to use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pac 2022We have said we exercise our discretion “only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Pemberton, 2019 ND 157, ¶ 9 , 930 N.W.2d 125 . 5 B [¶13] Count three of the amended information charged Dahl with unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.4-03(1), which at the time of the alleged offense provided: A person may not use or possess with intent to use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pac | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Mathisen
green
1 sentence1994See e.g., State v. Nehring, 509 N.W.2d 42 (N.D.1993) (delivery of a controlled substance in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(l)(b)); State v. Mathisen, 356 N.W.2d 129 (N.D.1984) (issuing cheeks without sufficient funds in violation of N.D.C.C. § 6-08-16); State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 30 (N.D.1984) (removing a child from the State contrary to a custody decree in violation of N.D.C.C. § 14-14-22.1). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Patten
green
1 sentence1994See e.g., State v. Nehring, 509 N.W.2d 42 (N.D.1993) (delivery of a controlled substance in violation of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-23(l)(b)); State v. Mathisen, 356 N.W.2d 129 (N.D.1984) (issuing cheeks without sufficient funds in violation of N.D.C.C. § 6-08-16); State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 30 (N.D.1984) (removing a child from the State contrary to a custody decree in violation of N.D.C.C. § 14-14-22.1). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Welsh v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences1993However, the officers’ testimony about the assertedly feared destruction of evidence, upon which they base their right to enter the home without a warrant, is nothing more than speculation about possibilities and does not “demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. at 750 , 104 *887 S.Ct. at 2098, 80 L.Ed.2d at 743 . 1993However, the officers’ testimony about the assertedly feared destruction of evidence, upon which they base their right to enter the home without a warrant, is nothing more than speculation about possibilities and does not “demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, supra, 466 U.S. at 750 , 104 *887 S.Ct. at 2098, 80 L.Ed.2d at 743 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People of State of New York v. Grega
green
2 sentences1989Methphetamine is classified in Schedule II, Section 19-03.1-05, North Dakota Century Code.” *691 The trial court instructed the jury as follows: “In this case, the following facts, that is, material allegations, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to justify a verdict of guilty. 1. that the defendant 2. delivered 3. a controlled substance.” Raywalt relies on People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489 , 534 N.Y.S.2d 647 , 531 N.E.2d 279 (Ct.App.1988) 3 for the proposition that the State must prove the description of the conduct that resulted in commission of the crime as alleged in the indictment. 1989Methphetamine is classified in Schedule II, Section 19-03.1-05, North Dakota Century Code.” *691 The trial court instructed the jury as follows: “In this case, the following facts, that is, material allegations, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to justify a verdict of guilty. 1. that the defendant 2. delivered 3. a controlled substance.” Raywalt relies on People v. Grega, 72 N.Y.2d 489 , 534 N.Y.S.2d 647 , 531 N.E.2d 279 (Ct.App.1988) 3 for the proposition that the State must prove the description of the conduct that resulted in commission of the crime as alleged in the indictment. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
George Hantscho Co. v. Wansor
green
1 sentence1979Goeller v. North Dakota, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 350 , 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978), that Goeller waived a jury trial and was found guilty of the charge of possessing a controlled substance in violation of Section 19-03.1-23(3), N.D. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Delph v. United States
green
1 sentence1979Goeller v. North Dakota, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 350 , 58 L.Ed.2d 344 (1978), that Goeller waived a jury trial and was found guilty of the charge of possessing a controlled substance in violation of Section 19-03.1-23(3), N.D. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.