Citing jurisdiction issues, the North Dakota Supreme Court recently dismissed an appeal of Bottineau County prosecutors, allowing proceedings against a Bottineau man charged with gross sexual imposition to remain in juvenile court.

The six counts of gross sexual imposition charged against the 26-year-old Bottineau man began as a criminal case in Northeast District Court but were transferred to juvenile court after an amendment to the statutory definition of a “child” came into effect after last year’s legislative session.

Under the current statute, a “child” now includes individuals 18 years or older who have been accused of delinquent acts when they were minors. In 2023, District Judge Michael Hurly had rejected a motion to dismiss made by the defendant’s attorneys in light of the new law, but he ruled the case be moved to juvenile court, as the delinquent acts the defendant is accused of committing occurred when he was around 13 years old.

This ruling was appealed by Bottineau County State’s Attorney Seymour Jordan on multiple grounds, and oral arguments before the high court took place on Oct. 4. The North Dakota Supreme Court issued its ruling on Thursday, denying the appeal on jurisdictional grounds, saying the state did not have the right to appeal Hurly’s order.

In the opinion written by Justice Lisa Fair McEvers, the court said Hurly had expressly denied the dismissal sought by the defense and had not issued a judgment in the first place, leaving the state with nothing to appeal. Additionally, McEvers noted the state is still able to seek to transfer the case back to criminal court at any time as long as Jordan is able to show the circumstances meet certain requirements under current law.

Though the defendant’s attorneys sought double attorney’s fees and costs from the state, the court denied this request as the state’s appeal was determined to not be frivolous.

“We conclude the State’s appeal of the transfer order is not flagrantly groundless or devoid of merit and does not demonstrate bad faith in pursuing the litigation,” McEvers wrote.

No new hearings have been scheduled for the case at this time.