Criminal Defense
In North Dakota, there are two main classifications of criminal offenses: misdemeanors and felonies. There are two types of misdemeanors in North Dakota, a Class B misdemeanor and a Class A misdemeanor. A Class B misdemeanor is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,000.00 fine. A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 365 days in jail and a $2,000.00 fine. A felony is any crime in which there exists the possibility of more than one year imprisonment. Felonies range from a Class C felony for which the maximum penalty is five years' imprisonment and a $5,000.00 fine to a Class AA felony for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
In a criminal case, a criminal defendant faces the possibility of jail time, a fine, legislative fees, court costs, and probation. Moreover, there are many collateral consequences that a criminal defendant faces upon a conviction, especially in felonies. These include, but are not limited to: the denial of federal and state benefits, the loss of a professional license, the loss of the right to possess a firearm, the loss of employment, the denial of entry into a college or university, and the denial to rent an apartment. It is important to note that an increasing number of employers and landlords are now doing criminal background checks. Many employers are not hiring job applicants if they have seemingly an insignificant misdemeanor conviction on their record.
If you were charged with a crime in North Dakota, you should contact Mr. Edinger or another attorney to discuss your legal rights and options.
CRIMINAL CASES
Here, is a small sample of criminal cases that Mr. Edinger has successfully defended over the last twelve years. Each case is different and whether one has a meritorious defense depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.
State of North Dakota v. B.F.
Defendant, a Korean War veteran, was wrongly charged with the crime of mistreating animals. Defendant was accused of mistreating his hunting dogs after a neighbor saw the defendant disciplining his hunting dogs. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the hunting dogs were well cared for and loved by the defendant. After Mr. Edinger was allowed to show the hunting dogs to the jury, shortly thereafter, the jury found the defendant not guilty of the charge.
State of North Dakota v. P.B.
Defendant, the owner of an exotic dance club, was charged with violating the city ordinance, which prohibited topless dancing. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the exotic dancer was not topless, instead she was wearing pasties. Moreover, the jury did not find the police officer's testimony credible. During intense cross examination from Mr. Edinger, the police officer admitted he was only two feet away from the exotic dancer, but claimed he could not remember if she was topless or not. The jury found the defendant not guilty of the charge.
State of North Dakota v. A.K.
Defendant was charged with felonious theft by deception. Defendant, a cashier at a convenience store, was accused of stealing from the store due to the fact that the store books were off hundreds of dollars during his shifts. At the preliminary hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the state did not have probable cause to believe the defendant had committed the crime. The district court judge agreed and found there was not probable cause to believe the defendant had committed the crime and dismissed the case.
State of North Dakota v. A.A.
Defendant was charged with terrorizing, a felony. At the preliminary hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the state did not have probable cause to believe the defendant had committed the crime. The district court judge agreed and found there was not probable cause to believe the defendant had committed the crime and dismissed the case. Subsequently, the State recharged the incident as a disorderly conduct. Defendant pled guilty to the reduced charge.
State of North Dakota v. M.H.
Defendant was charged with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant was facing the possibility of twenty years in prison. The police officer was investigating a crime at the local truck stop. Defendant was lawfully parked at the truck stop. Defendant's vehicle matched the general description of the suspect's vehicle. However, the police officer did not observe any illegal behavior or any traffic violations. Nevertheless, the police officer parked his car immediately behind the defendant. The defendant could not move his vehicle. At the motion to suppress hearing, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the police officer had illegally seized the defendant because he did not have reasonable articulable suspicion that the defendant was committing a crime. The district court judge agreed and granted the motion to suppress. Subsequently, all three felonies were dismissed for lack of evidence! According to the assistant state's attorney handling the case, the Fargo police department now trains their officers not to block a vehicle's pathway unless they have reasonable articulable suspicion to believe the motorist has committed a crime or they witness a traffic violation.
R.V. v. State of North Dakota
Petitioner was wrongly convicted of gross sexual imposition. At the post-conviction hearing, Mr. Edinger got the alleged victim to recant his story. The alleged victim testified he fabricated the incident, gave false information to the police, and committed perjury at the jury trial. Mr. Edinger successfully argued post-conviction relief should be granted. Both the prosecutor and the district court judge agreed and the petition for post conviction relief was granted. Subsequently, the prosecutor dismissed the criminal case.
State v. Aliva, 566 N.W.2d 410 (ND 1997)
Mr. Aliva was convicted of possession with the intent to deliver marijuana. The police smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from an apartment, where the defendant was a guest. The police knocked on the door and the apartment resident opened the door. The police saw a marijuana smoking bong on the coffee table in the living room. The police asked if they could come in. The resident gave an ambiguous response. The police asked again if they could come in. Once again, the resident gave an ambiguous response. Subsequently, the officer entered the apartment. They found 26 grams of marijuana, marijuana paraphernalia, and $2,380.00 in Mr. Aliva's backpack. On appeal, Mr. Edinger argued the search was illegal because the resident did not consent to the search. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed, reversed the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. Subsequently, the state dismissed the charges.
State of North Dakota v. M.S.
Defendant was charged with felonious failure to register as a sex offender. At the bench trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant failed to register as a sexual offender. The district court judge agreed and found the defendant not guilty.
State of North Dakota v. G.D.
Defendant was charged with felonious indecent exposure. Defendant was accused of masturbating in the Target parking lot. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger relentlessly cross examined the two witnesses. Both witnesses admitted they never saw the defendant's penis or any bare skin. In fact, they both admitted they were speculating that Defendant was masturbating when he was staring at them. Mr. Edinger successfully argued the defendant could not be convicted since the two witnesses did not see the defendant's penis. The jury agreed and found the defendant not guilty.
State of North Dakota v. K.P.
Defendant was wrong charged with simple assault. The state alleged the petite defendant had assaulted her boyfriend. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the defendant was merely protecting herself from her abusive, physically threatening boyfriend. The jury agreed and found the defendant not guilty.
State of North Dakota v. M.H.
Defendant was charged with two counts of terrorizing. The defendant was accused of threatening two people with bodily harm and then threatening to drink their blood. Due to Mr. Edinger's zealous advocacy and his persistence to go to trial, the State amended the charges to two counts of disorderly conduct just two days before the trial. Mr. Edinger refused to accept a plea deal and the case went to trial. At the jury trial, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the State's witnesses were not credible. The jury agreed and found the Defendant not guilty of the charges.
State v. Faleide, 652 N.W.2d 312 (ND 2002)
Mr. Faleide pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle. At sentencing, the state sought to forfeit Mr. Faleide's AK-47 and Ruger pistol. The state had not brought civil forfeiture proceedings. Instead, the state argued the guns could be forfeited as a condition of probation. On appeal, Mr. Edinger successfully argued the sentence was illegal because the guns could not be forfeited as a condition of probation. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed and reversed the forfeiture order. Defendant was allowed to retain ownership of the AK-47 and Ruger pistol.
The aforementioned cases are just a small sample of cases in which Mr. Edinger has had success defending clients charged with crimes during the last twelve years.