Narrative Opinion Summary
Grady Jackson appealed a criminal judgment from the District Court of Burleigh County, which found him guilty of driving under suspension. Jackson contested the legality of the traffic stop, claiming law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to justify it, and argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision, determining that the officer had observed Jackson's erratic driving, which provided a valid basis for the stop. The court concluded that there was adequate evidence to uphold the conviction. The ruling was issued per curiam, with Chief Justice Gerald W. VandeWalle and Justices Daniel J. Crothers, Mary Muehlen Maring, Carol Ronning Kapsner, and Dale V. Sandstrom concurring.
Legal Issues Addressed
Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stopsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop based on the officer's observation of erratic driving.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's decision, determining that the officer had observed Jackson's erratic driving, which provided a valid basis for the stop.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Convictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to support Jackson's conviction for driving under suspension.
Reasoning: The court concluded that there was adequate evidence to uphold the conviction.