A ruling is expected from the North Dakota Supreme Court regarding the proceedings of a Bottineau man who has been charged for acts he allegedly committed as a minor.

The defendant, now 26, was initially charged in Northeast District Court in August of 2021 as an adult in two separate cases on charges of gross sexual imposition (GSI), a Class A felony. The acts are alleged to have occurred when he was about 13 years old.

Both cases were dismissed in June 2022 without prejudice after violations were found to have occurred during the discovery process. The defendant was charged once again on August 23, 2022, in a singular case with six counts of GSI.

The case proceeded for several months until the passage of House Bill 1160 during the 2023 North Dakota Legislative Assembly, which went into effect on April 23. HB 1160 amended the statutory definition of a “child” to include individuals who are 18 years of age or older but who have been accused of delinquent acts committed while they were a minor. The statute was further amended to require that “children” under this definition may only be tried in district court if the charges against them originated in juvenile court before being transferred.

The defendant’s attorneys filed a motion requesting the case be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds due to his age when the alleged acts occurred. District Court Judge Michael Hurly rejected the dismissal and instead ordered the case be transferred to juvenile court in light of the new law.

The case was brought before the Supreme Court for oral arguments on this past Oct. 4, after an appeal was filed by Bottineau County State’s Attorney Seymour Jordan. Jordan appealed, saying Hurly erred in not first determining if the changes in HB 1160 were retroactive. Jordan further argued that precedent requires statutes to contain language expressly adding the retroactivity and contested that Hurly erred in seeking to cure the situation by sending the charges to juvenile court.

The defendant’s attorney Drew Hushka argued in his brief that the state lacked the ability to appeal the ruling under current statutes, saying prosecutors had failed to establish the district court ruling had violated the state’s rights. Hushka asserted the state still possesses the means to seek to transfer the case back to criminal court but argued the district court ruling correctly concluded the state didn’t have the right to pursue criminal charges against his client in light of the new law.

Huska cited precedent that looked to the legislative intent in such situations, as well as testimony made by the bill’s primary sponsor, Fargo Rep. Shannon Roers Jones, which he said supported the notion that the law was intended to be retroactive.

Jones testified at a March 21 hearing, saying, “There are several elements of juvenile court that are specifically tailored for offenders who the [sic] lack maturity and brain development of an adult. The current status of the law is arbitrary and harms defendants by dragging cases that should be handled privately in juvenile court into the public forum of district court.”

Another individual to testify in support of HB 1160 was Fargo attorney Mark Friese, who argued “youthful offenders lack full cognitive development and are therefore generally less culpable, and more deserving of juvenile court protections.”

Friese testified that youthful offenders charged in criminal court after they’ve reached adulthood are blocked from the less punitive punishments found in juvenile court, including rehabilitation, treatment and recidivism avoidance programs. Under current statutes, charges in juvenile court can be transferred to criminal court if the alleged acts are determined to be serious enough. Friese has been retained by the defendant since he was first charged in 2021.

Jordan responded by telling the justices that the facts of the charges do not fit into the concerns outlined by the Legislature and Friese, saying the charges were not known by law enforcement until the alleged victims brought them forward many years after they occurred.

Justice Lisa McEvers questioned Jordan as to the possible punishments that could be imposed should the case remain in juvenile court. Jordan responded they would be limited to supervised probation and some required treatments, with limitations on what could be imposed should violations later occur.

The Supreme Court took the case under advisement and hasn’t yet issued a ruling.