Court Opinion

ID: 9906257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 15:08:50.46704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:12.237837
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                  CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                      NOVEMBER 24, 2023
                                                                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  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.
                                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:

                                         1
             “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

                                           2
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

                                      3