IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 221

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Eli Lawrence Richter, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230124

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Lolita G. Hartl Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Crothers, Justice.

Ashlei A. Neufeld, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for plaintiff 

and appellee; submitted on brief. 

Paul C. Murphy, Carrington, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief. 

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

NOVEMBER 24, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Richter

No. 20230124

Crothers, Justice.

[¶1] Eli Richter appeals from an order deferring imposition of a sentence 

imposed after a jury found him guilty of unlawful use of an operator’s license.

We affirm, concluding N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 makes it a crime to display a 

fictitious license.

I

[¶2] The State charged Richter with unlawful use of a license alleging he

showed a counterfeit Minnesota driver’s license to a police officer in Grand 

Forks. At trial, the officer testified the “license was nonexistent or it was never 

issued through any state.” At the close of the State’s case, Richter moved for 

acquittal arguing:

“We would make a motion for directed verdict in the fact that in 

the definition [of ‘operator’s license’] it states, an operator’s license 

is issued under or granted by the laws of this state. The ID that 

was taken from Mr. Richter is not issued under the laws of this 

state. It does not meet the definition, Your Honor.”

The district court denied Richter’s motion, and the jury found him guilty. 

Richter appeals from an order deferring imposition of the court’s sentence. The 

order is appealable because it complies with the N.D.R.Crim.P. 32(b) 

requirements for criminal judgments. See State v. Vollrath, 2018 ND 269, ¶ 5, 

920 N.W.2d 746; see also N.D.C.C. § 29-28-06 (providing for criminal appeals); 

N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-02(4) (“An order deferring imposition of sentence is 

reviewable upon appeal from a verdict or judgment.”).

II

[¶3] Richter argues N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40 does not criminalize his act of

displaying a counterfeit driver’s license. We apply the following principles

when interpreting the language of a statute: 
2

“We make every effort to harmonize and give meaningful 

effect to statutes that relate to the same subject matter. We read 

words in a statute based on their plain, ordinary, and commonly 

understood meaning. We interpret statutes in context to give 

meaning and effect to every word, phrase, and sentence in a 

statute. We presume the legislature intended a just and reasonable 

result when enacting a statute, and we avoid interpreting statutes 

in a manner that would create an absurd or illogical result.”

Opp v. Off. of N.D. Att’y Gen.-BCI CWL Unit, 2023 ND 131, ¶ 10, 993 N.W.2d 

498 (cleaned up). 

[¶4] Under N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40(a), it is a crime for an individual:

“To display or cause or permit to be displayed or have in possession 

any canceled, revoked, fictitious, or fraudulently altered operator’s 

license or nondriver photo identification card[.]”

The term “operator’s license” is defined by N.D.C.C. § 39-01-01(56) to mean a 

license “to operate a motor vehicle issued under, or granted by, the laws of this 

State, including . . . [a]ny nonresident’s operating privilege . . . .” North Dakota 

grants non-residents driving privileges if they have a valid license issued by 

their home state or country. See N.D.C.C. § 39-06-02(b).

[¶5] Richter admits the license he showed law enforcement was not issued or 

granted by law. He argues the license the State proved he displayed, a 

counterfeit Minnesota driver’s license, does not meet the statutory definition 

of “operator’s license” and therefore the State failed to satisfy its burden at 

trial. We agree the definition of “operator’s license” does not describe a 

counterfeit driver’s license. Richter’s argument disregards the word “fictitious” 

in N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40, which makes it a crime to “display . . . any . . . fictitious 

. . . operator’s license . . . .” The word “fictitious” describes something that is 

not real. See Fictitious, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining 

“fictitious” as “[o]f, relating to, or involving a fiction, esp. a legal fiction”). It is 

an adjective that modifies the term “operator’s license” as that term is

statutorily defined. See N.D.C.C. § 1-02-03 (“Words and phrases must be 

construed according to the context and the rules of grammar and the approved 

usage of the language.”). Displaying a fictitious operator’s license—in this case 
3

a counterfeit Minnesota driver’s license—is a punishable offense under 

N.D.C.C. § 39-06-40. 

III

[¶6] The order deferring imposition of sentence is affirmed. 

[¶7] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr