IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 56

The State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

K.J.A., a Minor Child; Respondent and Appellant

and

R.A., mother; B.S., father, Respondents 

No. 20220286

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Billings County, Southwest Judicial District, 

the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Jensen, Chief Justice.

Olivia L. Krebs, Assistant State’s Attorney, Dickinson, ND, for petitioner and 

appellee.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for respondent and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

MARCH 31, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Corrected Opinion Filed 04/05/23 by Clerk of the Supreme Court
1

State v. K.J.A.

No. 20220286

Jensen, Chief Justice.

[¶1] K.J.A. appeals from a juvenile court denial of his petition for early 

destruction of records. K.J.A. argues the juvenile court erred in concluding 

N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04 precluded the court from destroying the records because 

N.D.R.Juv.P. 19(e) governs and permits the court to destroy juvenile records 

early for good cause. We conclude N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04 prohibits the 

destruction of the records at issue and we affirm.

[¶2] In 2020 a juvenile petition was filed asserting K.J.A. was a delinquent 

child pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 27-20-02(7), now N.D.C.C. § 27-20.2-01(8). K.J.A. 

was found to be a delinquent child and to have violated N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12, 

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(1)(d), and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(2)(a). In 2022 K.J.A. 

petitioned the court for early destruction of records. The court denied the 

petition, concluding N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04 precluded the court from destroying 

records when the alleged violation was a violation defined in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-

20 or N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2.

I

[¶3] K.J.A. argues the juvenile court erred in concluding N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-

04 precluded the court from destroying the records because N.D.R.Juv.P. 19(e) 

governs and permits the court to destroy juvenile records early for good cause. 

We have outlined the framework this Court applies when reviewing a juvenile 

court order:

Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 52(a), this Court reviews a juvenile court’s 

factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard of review, with 

due regard given to the opportunity of the juvenile court to judge 

the credibility of the witnesses. A finding of fact is clearly 

erroneous if there is no evidence to support it, if the reviewing 

court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has 

been made, or if the finding was induced by an erroneous view of 

the law. This Court reviews questions of law de novo.

Filed by Clerk of Supreme Court 04/05/23
2

In re D.O., 2013 ND 247, ¶ 6, 840 N.W.2d 641 (quotations omitted) (quoting 

Interest of R.A., 2011 ND 119, ¶ 4, 799 N.W.2d 332).

[¶4] The juvenile court determined N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04 controlled with 

regard to the specific records at issue and precluded the court from destroying 

the records under N.D.R.Juv.P. 19(e). Section 25-03.3-04, N.D.C.C., provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all adult and juvenile 

case files and court records of an alleged offense defined by 

chapters 12.1-20 and 12.1-27.2 must be retained for twenty-five 

years and made available to any state’s attorney for purposes of 

investigation or proceedings pursuant to this chapter. If the 

subject of a case file or court record has died before the expiration 

of the twenty-five-year period, the official, department, or agency 

possessing the case files and records shall maintain the case files 

and records in accordance with the case file and records retention 

policies of that official, department, or agency. For purposes of this 

section, “adult and juvenile case files” mean the subject’s medical, 

psychological, and treatment clinical assessments, evaluations, 

and progress reports; offenses in custody records; case notes; and 

criminal investigation reports and records.

Rule 19(e), N.D.R.Juv.P., provides:

(e) Early Destruction of Records. A party who is the subject of a 

delinquency or unruly proceeding may petition the court for early 

destruction of records. The state’s attorney of the county in which 

the records are held must be notified of the request. The judge may 

order the early destruction upon a showing of good cause to destroy 

the records by the party. The records may not be destroyed if it is 

known that the subject of the motion has criminal charges pending 

before any other court.

[¶5] We have noted the following when interpreting a substantive statute and

a court-promulgated procedural rule:

Our court has authority under Art. VI, § 3, of the North 

Dakota Constitution, to promulgate “rules of procedure” to be 

followed by all the courts of this state. When the issue could be said 

to involve a matter that entwines procedure with substantive law, 
3

we will respect the clearly expressed intent of the Legislature 

when to do so will not compromise or unreasonably impede justice. 

Schempp-Cook v. Cook, 455 N.W.2d 216, 217 (N.D. 1990).

[¶6] Section 25-03.3-04, N.D.C.C., is a substantive statute requiring retention 

of records when the alleged offense was a violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20 or

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-27.2. Precluding a court from destroying juvenile records early

when the alleged offense(s) are defined in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20 and N.D.C.C. §

12.1-27.2 will not compromise or unreasonably impede justice. Therefore, we 

will respect the Legislature’s clear intent to require retention of records as 

provided for in N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04.

[¶7] K.J.A. was found to have violated N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12, N.D.C.C. § 12.1-

20-03(1)(d), and N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-03(2)(a). All three offenses are defined by

chapter 12.1-20 and are subject to N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04. Therefore, K.J.A.’s 

records relating to this case must be maintained for twenty-five years and 

cannot be destroyed early. The juvenile court did not err as a matter of law in 

concluding N.D.C.C. § 25-03.3-04 precludes the court from destroying records 

early under N.D.R.Juv.P. 19(e).

II

[¶8] The juvenile court did not err in denying the petition. We affirm the 

juvenile court’s denial of K.J.A.’s petition for early destruction of records.

[¶9] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr