North Dakota v. GreenshieldsAnnotate this Case
The State of North Dakota appealed an order dismissing a criminal complaint charging Jerome Greenshields with two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross sexual imposition. In February 2018, the State charged Greenshields with one count of sexual assault under N.D.C.C. 12.1-20-07(1)(f) alleged to have occurred between June 1, 1997, and August 30, 1997, and one count of gross sexual imposition under N.D.C.C. 12.1-20-03(2)(a) and (c) alleged to have occurred between September 1, 2001, and September 31, 2001. In August 2018, Greenshields moved for a bill of particulars setting forth the specific date of the allegation of sexual assault because, effective August 1, 1997, the penalty for a violation of N.D.C.C. 12.1-20-07(1)(f) changed from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony. Greenshields argued the bill of particulars was necessary to adequately inform him of “his right to be free from ex post facto prosecution.” In October 2018, the district court granted the motion and ordered the State to file a bill of particulars. After the State failed to timely produce the bill of particulars, Greenshields moved for an order dismissing the case “for systemic disregard of the law” because the State had violated the district court’s “explicit orders” and “[d]ismissal is required to prophylactically ensure the State’s future compliance.” Greenshields’ motion and brief in support of the motion did not state whether he sought dismissal with or without prejudice. The State opposed the motion, arguing the victim could not remember the specific dates of the alleged offense. In his reply brief in support of the motion, Greenshields once again urged the court to “dismiss” for willfully disobeying its order. No hearing was requested or held on the motion. Then the court granted Greenshields' motion to dismiss. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that because there was no evidence to support the district court’s ruling that an earlier order dismissing a similar criminal complaint and information was intended to be “with prejudice,” the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.