Rights of the accused. Text of the section: current and prior versions.

Every citing reference in the corpus: 240 court opinions and 4 Attorney General opinions. Counts include the section's pre-1981 designation (§ 13), era-gated by the renumbering crosswalk.

Generated from the citation graph of the validated corpus. Treatment groupings (construing / citing / recital) are heuristic reading aids, not editorial judgments — read the opinion before relying on any signal.

Topics are machine-generated groupings of the citing references — reading aids, not editorial judgments. Documents cited after the last classification pass appear in the lists below until the next pass.

• State v. Hoff, 2025 ND 215 (2025, Crothers, J.)
• Campbell v. State, 2025 ND 152 (2025, Jensen, J.)
• State v. Lewellyn, 2025 ND 98 (2025, McEvers, J.)
• Williamson v. State, 2025 ND 66 (2025, Crothers, J.)
• Edwards v. State, 2025 ND 43 (2025, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Janachovsky, 2025 ND 30 (2025, Jensen, J.)
• State v. Benter, 2022 ND 101 (2022, VandeWalle, J.)
• Yoney v. State, 2021 ND 132 (2021, Tufte, J.)
• Young v. Burleigh Morton Detention Center, et al., 2021 ND 8 (2021, McEvers, J.)
• State v. Rodriguez, 2020 ND 261 (2020, McEvers, J.)
• State v. Ovind, 2020 ND 51 (2020, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 4: “…e Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by the North Dakota Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. VI ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused 1 shall enjoy the right to ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."); N.D. Const. art. I, § 12 ("In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to ... appear and defend in person and with counsel."); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (holding the Sixth Amendment's r…”
• Nicholas Charles Morris v. State of North Dakota, 2019 ND 166 (2019, McEvers, J.)
• Jensen v. State, 2019 ND 126 (2019, McEvers, J.)
• Olson v. State, 2019 ND 135 (2019, McEvers, J.)
• Davies v. State, 2018 ND 211 (2018, McEvers, J.)
• Rourke v. State, 2018 ND 137 (2018, McEvers, J.)
• Riddle v. Riddle, 2018 ND 62 (2018, VandeWalle, J.)
• Saari v. State, 2017 ND 94 (2017, Kapsner, J.)
• Everett v. State, 2015 ND 149 (2015, McEvers, J.)
• Bahtiraj v. State, 2013 ND 240 (2013, Maring, J.)
• Wilson v. State (consolidated w/ 20120426-20120428), 2013 ND 124 (2013, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Garg (consolidated w/20110299), 2012 ND 138 (2012, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Dahl (Consolidated w/20090019), 2009 ND 204 (2009, VandeWalle, J.)
• City of Grand Forks v. Corman, 2009 ND 125 (2009, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Torkelsen, 2008 ND 141 (2008, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Schweitzer, 2007 ND 122 (2007, Sandstrom, J.)
• Wright v. State, 2005 ND 217 (2005, Sandstrom, J.)
• City of Fargo v. Habiger, 2004 ND 127 (2004, Kapsner, J.)
• State v. Ochoa (Consolidated w/20030133), 2004 ND 43 (2004, Neumann, J.)
• Damron v. State, 2003 ND 102 (2003, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Schneeweiss, 2001 ND 120 (2001, Kapsner, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 6: “…The right to counsel in a criminal case is mandated both by the North Dakota Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. *State v. DuPaul,* 527 N.W.2d 238, 240 (N.D. 1995); N.D. Const. art. I, § 12 ("In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to ... appear and defend in person and with counsel."); U.S. Const. amend. VI ("In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall en…”
• Mathre v. State, 2000 ND 201 (2000, Maring, J.)
• State v. Strutz, 2000 ND 22 (2000, Maring, J.)
• State v. Dvorak, 2000 ND 6 (2000, VandeWalle, J.)
• City of Fargo v. Rockwell, 1999 ND 125 (1999, Kapsner, J.)
• State of North Dakota v. Scott Thomas Mund, 1999 ND 90 (1999, Neumann, J.)
• Damien David Breding v. State of North Dakota, 1998 ND 170 (1998, Neumann, J.)
• State of North Dakota v. Linus R. Poitra, 1998 ND 88 (1998, Meschke, J.)
• State v. McDonell, 1996 ND 117 (1996, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Touche, 1996 ND 116 (1996, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Dalman, 1994 ND 179 (1994, Neumann, J.)
• Stoppleworth v. State, 1993 ND 103 (1993, Neumann, J.)
• State v. Wilson, 1992 ND 135 (1992, Johnson, J.)
• State v. Skaro, 1991 ND 157 (1991, Erickstad, J.)
• State v. Thill, 1991 ND 134 (1991, Gierke, J.)
• City of Fargo v. Christiansen, 1988 ND 187 (1988, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…to make a presumption in this case in favor of the defendant, I don’t think the City could really argue against it, and that presumption being that the document was actually signed some moments after the actual guilty plea and sentence was given.” Article I, Section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution provides, in part, that “[i]n criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to ... defend in person and with counsel.” Thus an accused has the righ…”
• State v. Fontaine, 1986 ND 13 (1986, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…witness’s identification. 3) Whether or not Fontaine’s State and Federal Constitutional rights to counsel were violated when prior convictions were considered in sentencing where the record did not indicate that Fontaine had or waived counsel. I Article I, Section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution guarantees that “[i]n criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend in person and with counsel.” This basic right is also…”
• State v. Johnson, 1985 ND 183 (1985, Erickstad, J.)
• State v. Orr, 1985 ND 180 (1985, Levine, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…s right to counsel before pleading guilty to the earlier DUI charge. Consequently, Orr argues that he was sentenced as a second offender in violation of his rights secured by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution. 1. First or Second Offense? At the outset, we note that the trial court failed to articulate its reasons for imposing the particular sentence, in spite of the mandate of NDCC § 12.1-…”
• State v. Jensen, 1978 ND 48 (1978, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…abused its judicial discretion. In Jensen's previous motion in our court for the payment of his attorneys' fees and expenses of appeal by the county in conjunction with his first convictions and appeal to this court, we recognized as a basis for his motion, Section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota, and Rule 44 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure.4 4 "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right . . . to appear and defend in…”
• State v. Jensen, 1976 ND 33 (1976, Vogel, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…hat Jensen does not pose a danger to others and the community. INDIGENCY AND REPRESENTATION AT PUBLIC EXPENSE If a defendant is indigent, he is entitled to have an attorney appointed for him at public expense in the Supreme Court, as well as in other courts. Section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota provides, in part: 'In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right . . . to appear and defend in person and with counsel. . . .' Rule 44, N…”
• State v. Heasley, 1970 ND 61 (1970, Knudson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…rial without counsel, as the court had announced it would not appoint counsel for him. The record discloses a person thoroughly confused as to the issues involved, both of fact and of law, and an inadequate defense of his cause by himself as his own attorney. Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution, in defining rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions, states that the party accused shall have the right ‘to appear and defend in person and with counsel.’ [1] Sections 27—08—31,…”
• Application of Stone, 1969 ND 43 (1969, Paulson, J.)
• John v. State, 1968 ND 33 (1968, Paulson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In the present case, sentencing had been completed, the criminal proceeding had ended, and [*44] petitioner had been accorded conditional liberty by legislative grace. [11] [12] The right to counsel clause of Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution refers to ‘criminal prosecution’ and states that in such prosecution the party accused shall have the right to ‘appeal and defend in person and with counsel’. A probation or parole revoc…”
• State v. Starratt, 1967 ND 50 (1967, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…d on them by the Constitution or statutes, is to grant defendants in criminal cases the right and opportunity to procure and to be heard by counsel. The power of appointment and to fix the compensation is not granted to justices of the peace or magistrates. Section 13 of our State Constitution reads as follows: In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the process of the court to compel the attendance…”
• State v. O'NEILL, 1962 ND 41 (1962, Morris, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…he first degree. He felt that he had but one alternative. It was a waiver compelled by a lack of choice, arising out of necessities of the circumstances. 'A waiver of counsel based on these conditions cannot be said to be freely and understandingly made.' Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution, in defining rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions, states that the party accused shall have the right 'to appear and defend in person and with counsel.' Section 29-13-03, NDC…”
• State v. Magrum, 1949 ND 20 (1949, Burke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…C. J., dissenting. [*544] MORRIS, Judge (concurring). I concur in the determination reached in the opinion prepared by Judge Burke that the judgment and sentence rendered against the defendant are void. I would point up my concurrence with these comments. Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution guarantees to a party accused of crime the right to appear and defend in person and with counsel. Supplementing this provision the legislature has provided that, 'If a defendant appears…”
• State v. Gutterman, 1910 ND 124 (1910, Carmody, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ions of fact in this case. The court will give you the law. It is your duty to decide this case according to the law given you by the court." The right of the defendant in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is one guaranteed him by the Constitution. Section 13 of the Constitution of the state of North Dakota, as far as material, is as follows: "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the proc…”
• Harris v. Rolette County, 1907 ND 36 (1907, Morgan, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…for said sum with costs. The district court reversed the judgment of the justice of the peace on appeal thereto, and dismissed plaintiff's action. The sole question before us is whether the county is liable for a reasonable attorney's fee under such facts. Section 13 of the Constitution gives to one accused of crime the right "to appear and defend in person and with counsel." Section 9758, Rev. Code 1905, relating to preliminary examinations, provides that "the magistrate must immed…”

• State v. Barrett, 2025 ND 186 (2025, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Allman, 2025 ND 75 (2025, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Glaum, 2024 ND 47 (2024, McEvers, J.)
• State v. Kollie, 2023 ND 152 (2023, Tufte, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 4: “…In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to a public trial. U.S. Const. amend. VI; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. Kollie concedes he did not preserve the public trial issue by objecting at trial. Thus, we review only for obvious error. State v. Davis-Heinze, 2022 ND 201, ¶ 8, 982 N.W.2d 1. To demonstrate obvious error, the defenda…”
• State v. Peters (consolidated w/ 20220075), 2022 ND 196 (2022, Tufte, J.)
• State v. Jensen, 2021 ND 119 (2021, Jensen, J.)
• State v. Walbert, 2021 ND 49 (2021, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 7: “…Among other things, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a public criminal trial. See also N.D. Const. art. I, § 12 ("In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial ..."). A criminal defendant's public trial right is shared with the public to assure fairness, among…”
• State v. Wayland, 2020 ND 106 (2020, Jensen, J.)
• State v. Morales, 2019 ND 206 (2019, Tufte, J.) · construes, quotes the provision
  • ¶ 16: “…see also* *Decker* , at ¶ 35 (Tufte, J., dissenting) ("Whether called 'trivial' or not, such partial or temporary restrictions on public access are not properly considered the sort of 'closure' within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, § 12."). Like the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment public trial right attaches from the beginning of adversarial proceedings through sentencing. *Rogers*, 2018 ND 244 , ¶¶ 11-12, 919 N.W.2d 193 . Closur…”
• State v. Hamre, 2019 ND 86 (2019, Tufte, J.)
• Koenig v. State, 2018 ND 59 (2018, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Decker, 2018 ND 43 (2018, Crothers, J.) · construes
  • ¶ 35: “…ed to limit noise and allow entry only during recesses. Whether called "trivial" or not, such partial or temporary restrictions on public access are not properly considered the sort of "closure" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment or N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. C…”
• State v. Hall, 2017 ND 124 (2017, Kapsner, J.)
• State v. Owens (consolidated w/20140143), 2015 ND 68 (2015, McEvers, J.)
• State v. Holbach (cross-reference w/ 20120155 & 20120215), 2014 ND 14 (2014, per curiam) · construes
  • ¶ 19: “…spital on the basis of the suspended criminal charge and his lack of capacity to stand trial without being afforded the statutory safeguards of N.D.C.C. ch. 25-03.1. A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a right to a speedy trial under N.D. Const. art. I, § 12, and N.D.C.C. §§ 29-01-06(5) and 29-19-02, and "is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved" under N.D.C.C. § 29-21-05. Construing N.D.C.C. § 12.1-04-08 in light of those rights and to avoid a possible const…”
• State v. Cain, 2011 ND 213 (2011, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Moran, 2006 ND 62 (2006, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Bergstrom, 2004 ND 48 (2004, Maring, J.)
• State of North Dakota v. Jerry Jerome Johnson, 1999 ND 33 (1999, Sandstrom, J.)
• State of North Dakota v. David Allen Moe, 1998 ND 137 (1998, Maring, J.)
• State v. Garcia, 1997 ND 60 (1997, Meschke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 20: “…The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant "the right to a speedy and public trial_" *See also* N.D. Const. Art. I, § 12. Although the guarantee of a public trial was created for the benefit of criminal defendants, *see In re Oliver,* 333 U.S. 257, 270 n. 25, 68 S.Ct. 499, 506, n. 25, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), the right is also shared with t…”
• State v. Runck, 1987 ND 195 (1987, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…should be delayed pending Runck’s truthful testimony, should not be the basis for dismissal of the charge and convictions in this case. The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution.4 We have also recognized that the trial court may dismiss pursuant to Rule 48(b), N.D.R.Crim.P., “whenever there has been unnecessary delay without being required to decide whether the…”
• State v. VandeHoven, 1986 ND 99 (1986, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…§ 39–20–07(8) (1983). III [6] [7] VandeHoven’s final argument is that the delay between the trial and the lower court’s decision—a delay of six months—deprived him of a speedy trial and due process. In support of this view, VandeHoven relies on Article I, Section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution, which provides: “In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; ... No person shall ... be deprived of life, lib…”
• State v. Weisz, 1984 ND 181 (1984, Sand, J.)
• State v. Rummel, 1982 ND 163 (1982, Erickstad, J.)
• State v. LaFontaine, 1980 ND 67 (1980, Pederson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…right to have the public excluded was rejected. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy [*428] and public trial, by an impartial jury . . . .” [1] Section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota provides in part: “In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial . . . .” Section 29-07-14, NDCC, states: “the…”
• State v. Carlson, 1977 ND 99 (1977, Sand, J.)
• State v. Berger, 1975 ND 60 (1975, Erickstad, J.)
• In re Morgan, 1929 ND 39 (1929, Burke, J.)
• State v. Dinger, 1924 ND 50 (1924, Johnson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…n accused of crime, who is informed against at the January, 1922, term of the district court, and as at all times out on bail, procures a postponement over that term, he is not entitled to a discharge for delay, pursuant to section 11166, Comp. Laws 1913, and section 13, Constitution of North Dakota, merely because no jury is called at the two next terms of court and he is not then given a trial; the accused not having resisted postponement over such terms in any way, asked that a jury…”
• State v. Kilmer, 1915 ND 144 (1915, Bruce, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…d the procedure appears to have been in conformity with, rather than in violation of, the constitutional provision that provides that: "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial." See section 13, Constitution of North Dakota. Section 10628 of the Compiled Laws of 1913 provides that: "During each term of the district court held in and for any county or judicial subdivision in this state at which a grand jury has…”
• Murphy v. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 1905 ND 88 (1905, Young, J.)
• State ex rel. Adams v. Larson, 1903 ND 69 (1903, Cochrane, J.) · construes
  • “…o. App.) 42 Pac. 599. Relator was not admitted to bail, within the meaning of this statute. The relator does not bring himself within the terms of the statute entitling him to a discharge in this proceeding. This statute puts a legislative construction upon section 13 of the Constitution, by which accused persons are guarantied a speedy trial. It declares what is a reasonable time within which the prosecuting officers shall bring the accused person to trial. While its object is to se…”

• State v. Martinez, 2025 ND 204 (2025, Bahr, J.)
• State v. Borland, 2021 ND 52 (2021, Jensen, J.)
• City of West Fargo v. Ekstrom, 2020 ND 37 (2020, McEvers, J.) · construes, quotes the provision
  • ¶ 9: “…The double jeopardy provisions of the federal and state constitutions and state law prohibit successive prosecutions and punishments for the same criminal offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12; N.D.C.C. § 29-01-07. In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn. See Day v. Haskell, 2011 ND 125, ¶ 8, 799 N.W.2d 355. However, double jeopardy does not always prohibit retrial when the fir…”
• State v. Vanberkom, 2018 ND 167 (2018, Tufte, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 7: “…tes Constitution states, "No person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Similarly, the North Dakota Constitution provides, "No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense." N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. Our precedent has applied the state constitutional provision to provide protection equivalent in scope to the Fifth Amendment. State v. Allesi, 216 N.W.2d 805, 817-18 (N.D. 1974). Section 39-09-01.1, N.D.C.C., provides…”
• Interest of C.B. (CONFIDENTIAL), 2018 ND 27 (2018, McEvers, J.)
• State v. Voigt, 2007 ND 100 (2007, VandeWalle, J.)
• Gray v. N.D. Game and Fish Dept., 2005 ND 204 (2005, Sandstrom, J.)
• State v. Martin, 2001 ND 189 (2001, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Kelly, 2001 ND 135 (2001, Neumann, J.) · construes
  • ¶ 11: “…nited States Constitution, protects against successive prosecutions and punishments for the same criminal offense. *State v. Foley,* 2000 ND 91, ¶ 6, 610 N.W.2d 49. Our state constitution also commands protection against double jeopardy. N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. We use the same interpretation of punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis under North Dakota statutory and constitutional law and federal constitutional law. *State v. Jacobson,* 545 N.W.2d 152, 153 (N.D.…”
• State v. Jacobson, 1996 ND 58 (1996, Neumann, J.) · construes, quotes the provision
  • “…prosecutions. Particularly, I share Justice Levine’s view of appellees’ arguments as “thoughtful.” I would add that they display exemplary advocacy! I join in Justice Levine’s conclusion that Allesi’s unstudied pronouncement, that what is present Art. I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution intended the same result “mandated by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” was demonstrably “unsupported by authority or reasoning, and it deserves no further adherenc…”
• State v. Lange, 1993 ND 28 (1993, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Meyer, 1992 ND 225 (1992, Johnson, J.)
• City of Dickinson v. Kraft, 1991 ND 118 (1991, Meschke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ence). The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is fully applicable to state criminal proceedings. Greene v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 98 S.Ct. 2151, 57 L.Ed.2d 15 (1978). See also State v. McMorrow, 286 N.W.2d 284 (N.D.1979). In addition, Article I, Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution commands protection against double jeopardy for the same offense.4 4 The North Dakota Constitution, Article I, § 12 says: In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accu…”
• City of Wahpeton v. Desjarlais, 1990 ND 137 (1990, Gierke, J.)
• State v. Melin, 1988 ND 155 (1988, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Pendergrast, 1983 ND 200 (1983, Sand, J.)
• State v. Jensen, 1983 ND 54 (1983, Paulson, J.)
• State v. Berger, 1975 ND 79 (1975, Sand, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…t the defendants found them guilty, and pronounced sentence. Defendants now appeal this conviction, claiming they were twice put in jeopardy and also that the evidence against them was not sufficient to establish a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution provides, in part, ‘No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.’ The North Dakota Century Code, Section 29—01—07, provides as follows: ‘No person can be twice put in j…”
• State v. Allesi, 1974 ND 18 (1974, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…Allesi’s motion for an advised verdict, and we have discussed decisions supporting our view, we must now consider Allesi’s contention that to grant a new trial would place him twice in jeopardy, prohibited by Amendment V of the United States Constitution and Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution. ‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces…”
• City of Minot v. Knudson, 1971 ND 12 (1971, Paulson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…motion further states that Mr. Knudson had been placed once in jeopardy by the trial in the municipal court and, his bond having been released, it would constitute double jeopardy and would contravene the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution to grant the appellant a review and a reversal of the district court decision. On the day set for oral argument before this court, and prior to hearing the oral arguments with reference…”
• City of Minot v. Whitfield, 1955 ND 50 (1955, Grimson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…y the defendant can apply for a new trial when a verdict has been rendered against him. There is no provision for granting the plaintiff, the City of Minot, the right to move for a new trial after the acquittal of the defendant. Amend 5, U.S. Constitution and Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution provide that 'No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.' In the case of Tate v. Kelsey, 49 N.D. 148, 190 N.W. 817, this court says: 'When the court rendered a judgme…”
• Ryan v. Nygaard, Warden, 1941 ND 32 (1941, Christianson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ttempt to commit burglary with the use of nitroglycerin, and that consequently the imposition of sentence for burglary in the third degree under such information resulted in the petitioner being "twice put in jeopardy for the same offense" in contravention of Section 13 of the State Constitution; and in violation of Section 10328, C.L.1913, which provides: "An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different provisions of this code or other penal statute may be p…”
• State v. Kelsey, 1922 ND 110 (1922, Bronson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ght into controversy in some case or cases where such persons will be entitled to be heard thereupon, they are moot. In our Constitution, similar to the federal Constitution, it is provided that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. Section 13, N. D. Const. Section 10993, C. L. 1913, otherwise provides for an appeal by the state, viz: (1) From a judgment for defendant or a demurrer to an information or indictment; (2) from an order granting a new trial; (3) f…”
• State v. Barry, 1905 ND 49 (1905, Young, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…sufficient in form and substance not only to authorize, but also to require, the trial judge to pronounce judgment thereon. And, as against the verdict and judgment in pursuance of which the defendant is now undergoing punishment, he invokes the protection of section 13 of the state Constitution, which provides that "* * * no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, * * *" and article 5 of the amendments to the federal Constitution, of like tenor and import: "* * * N…”

• State v. Hanson, 2023 ND 46 (2023, McEvers, J.)
• State v. Kukert, 2021 ND 192 (2021, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 13: “…The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and N.D. Const. art. I, § 12, provide that "[n]o person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held a person subjected to custo…”
• State v. Hansford, 2019 ND 52 (2019, McEvers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 3: “…ss rights. He also argued he was coerced to rescind his request for legal representation in violation of his *Miranda* rights, and that the interrogation violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and N.D. Const. art. I, § 12.…”
• State v. Brickle-Hicks, 2018 ND 194 (2018, McEvers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 8: “…The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and N.D. Const. art. I, § 12, provides that "[n]o person shall be ... compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In *Miranda v. Arizona*, 384 U.S. 436 , 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States S…”
• State v. Jennewein (consolidated w/ 20140369), 2015 ND 192 (2015, Crothers, J.)
• Day v. Haskell, et al., 2011 ND 125 (2011, Maring, J.)
• State v. Crabtree, 2008 ND 174 (2008, Maring, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 10: “…Crabtree contends that his disclosure of incriminating information to his probation officer was compelled in violation of his right against self-incrimination under U.S. Const, amend. V and N.D. Const, art. I, § 12. Crabtree asserts he was "compelled" because both he and his probation officer believed that his refusal to provide information would result in revocation of his probation and because Crabtree feared probation revocatio…”
• State v. Goebel, 2007 ND 4 (2007, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 21: “…Goebel's final contention that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress is premised on the argument that Article I, Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to have their custodial interrogations electronically recorded. Article I, Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution provides: In criminal prosec…”
• State v. Myers, 2006 ND 242 (2006, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Zahn, 1997 ND 65 (1997, Sandstrom, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 6: “…es Constitution provides an accused with a privilege against self-incrimination: 'No person ... shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself.'" *State v. Beaton,* 516 N.W.2d 645, 647 (N.D. 1994); *see also* N.D. Const. Art. I, § 12 ("[n]o person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself").…”
• Matter of Contempt of Grajedas, 1994 ND 92 (1994, Meschke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…refore, Grajedas and Funke could not be compelled to incriminate themselves at the state’s attorney’s inquiry. 3 U.S. Const. amend. V: “No person ... shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself ...;” see also N.D.Const. art. I, § 12: “No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....” [12] [13] A witness must properly exercise the privilege against self-incrimination in order to obtain its protection. State…”
• State v. Murray, 1994 ND 1 (1994, Neumann, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…that Hocking gratuitously advised Murray of his Miranda rights. See Newnam, 409 N.W.2d at 82–83 (Miranda warnings not required unless defendant taken into custody, or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action). 2 Murray’s appellate brief quotes Article I, Section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution. As we have said before, “[t]he pertinent language of Article I, Section 12, is identical to that of the Fifth Amendment.” State v. Nordquist, 309 N.W.2d 109, 119 n. 9 (N.D.1981). [7]…”
• State v. Nordquist, 1981 ND 124 (1981, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ttorney’s failure to produce the police reports served to prejudice Nordquist nor do we believe that the grand jury can be said to have violated Section 29-10.1-27. [*119] IV [9] Relying on the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,8 Article I, Section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution,9 Section 29-21-11, N.D.C.C.,10 Rule 512, N.D.R.Ev.,11 and language from State v. Marmon, 154 N.W.2d 55 (N.D.1967),12 Nordquist claims that the trial court should have granted his motio…”
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 74-94 (1974)
• State v. Iverson, 1971 ND 28 (1971, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 A.L.R.3d 974 (1966). He further alleges that these proceedings were unconstitutional in that he was told he could not refuse to answer the questions and thus was compelled to testify against himself, in violation of Section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota and in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S…”
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 47-182 (1947)
• State v. Gibson, 1938 ND 55 (1938, Christianson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…took the testimony was called and testified regarding certain statements made by the defendant in her testimony at the coroner's inquest. It is contended by the appellant that this testimony was inadmissible, and that its admission violated the provisions of section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution which provides that no person shall "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". North Dakota Constitution, Section 13. The admission of testimony as to the state…”
• State v. McKay, 1926 ND 150 (1926, Burke, J.)
• State v. Shank, 1924 ND 132 (1924, Christianson, J.)
• State v. Pauley, 1922 ND 140 (1922, Birdzell, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…against unreasonable searches and seizures (section 18, N. D. Const.), it does not follow that the testimony of the officers or the introduction, as evidence, of such instrumentalities, compels defendants in a criminal case to be witnesses against themselves (section 13, N. D. Const.). Wigmore, in his work on Evidence, has elaborately considered the growth, development, and status of the principles established in the constitutional provisions quoted. He states: "It has long been establ…”
• In re Beer, 1908 ND 46 (1908, Morgan, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…Syllabus by the Court. A witness, sworn before a grand jury, cannot be compelled to answer questions which would tend to criminate him, and is privileged from answering such questions by section 13 of the Constitution, which declares that "no person * * * shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," unless granted unconditional immunity from prosecution for the offense concerning which…”

• State v. Moen, 2025 ND 163 (2025, Jensen, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 5: “…e North Dakota Constitution has a "similar guarantee." City of Fargo v. Komad, 2006 ND 177, ¶ 5, 720 N.W.2d 619. "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend in person[.]" N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. The Confrontation Clause reflects a preference for face-to-face confrontation at criminal trials. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). An accused's right to confrontation is fundamentall…”
• State v. Rademacher (consolidated w/20220127 & 20220128), 2023 ND 9 (2023, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 4: “…as, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). We have a similar guarantee in our State Constitution: 'In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend in person....' N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. "North Dakota has long recognized the constitutional right of a defendant to be personally present during the whole of a trial. State v. Schasker, 60 N.D. 462, 235 N.W. 345 (N.D. 1931) (calling in jury after retireme…”
• Potts v. City of Devils Lake, et al., 2021 ND 2 (2021, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Groce, 2018 ND 46 (2018, Crothers, J.)
• State v. Roe, 2014 ND 104 (2014, VandeWalle, J.)
• City of Fargo v. Komad, 2006 ND 177 (2006, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 5: “…l prosecutions. U.S. Const. Amend. VI; Baer, at ¶ 8. We have a similar guarantee in the North Dakota Constitution: "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend in person." N.D. Const. art. I, § 12; Baer, at ¶ 8. "One of the most basic of the rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause is the accused's right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial." Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 (1970).…”
• City of Mandan v. Richard B. Baer, 1998 ND 101 (1998, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 8: “…,* 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). We have a similar guarantee in our State Constitution: "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right ... to appear and defend in person...." N.D. Const. art. I, § 12.…”
• State v. Haugen, 1990 ND 129 (1990, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Smuda, 1988 ND 18 (1988, Levine, J.)
• State v. Mondo, 1982 ND 138 (1982, Pederson, J.)
• Moll v. Moll, 1975 ND 39 (1975, Erickstad, J.)
• State v. Schasker, 1931 ND 28 (1931, Burke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…this proceeding was had in the absence of the defendant and his attorney. The defendant was in jail at the time, and neither he nor his attorney had any knowledge of the proceeding. This action on the part of the court is assigned as error, and it is error. Section 13 of the Constitution provides: "In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right * * * to appear and defend in person and with counsel." Section 10709, C. L. 1913, provides: "If th…”

• McCrothers Corp., et al. v. City of Mandan, 2007 ND 28 (2007, VandeWalle, J.)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 94-F-15 (1994)
• State v. Ricehill, 1987 ND 164 (1987, VandeWalle, J.) · construes
  • “…ome, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.” Blue, 544 P.2d at 390, quoting Art. II, § 13, Colo. Const. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the right to bear arms was absolute and that the prohibition on firearm possession by a felon thus was unconstitutional. In so concluding, the court state…”
• Hanson v. Williams County, 1986 ND 104 (1986, Gierke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.” The following part of Article I, § 12, of the North Dakota Constitution guarantees due process of law: “Section 12. ... No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” We apply an equal protection analysis to § 28–…”
• Patch v. Sebelius, 1982 ND 89 (1982, Paulson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…appeal dismissed 429 U.S. 806, 97 S.Ct. 41, 50 L.Ed.2d 67 (1976). We also reject Patch’s contention that the State has acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in violation of the Due Process Clauses of the State6 and Federal Constitutions.7 6 N.D.Const.Art. I, § 12, provides, in part: “... No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” 7 See Fn. 4, supra. [7] Finally, Patch urges us to carve out an exception to the rule of sovereign im…”
• Arneson v. Olson, 1978 ND 96 (1978, Vogel, J.)
• Newman Signs, Inc. v. Hjelle, 1978 ND 71 (1978, Vogel, J.)
• Johnson v. Elkin, 1978 ND 22 (1978, Vogel, J.) · quotes the provision
• State ex rel. Olson v. Maxwell, 1977 ND 113 (1977, Vogel, J.)
• Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 1977 ND 5 (1977, Pederson, J.)
• Hastings ex rel. Hastings v. James River Aerie No. 2337, 1976 ND 84 (1976, Erickstad, J.)
• Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy, 1974 ND 41 (1974, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…privileges or immunities which shall not be granted to all citizens upon the same terms.’ Snyder’s contends that the trial judge’s conclusion that Section 43—15—35(5), N.D.C.C., is unconstitutional is sustainable for the additional reasons that it violates Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution, which provides that no persons may be deprived of property without due process of law, and that it violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the United States Constitution, which give…”
• Johnson v. Hassett, 1974 ND 32 (1974, Vogel, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…eputation.’ Few of them discuss the ‘privileges and immunities’ constitutional provision such as is contained in Section 20, or the requirement that laws of a general nature have uniform operation, as in Section 11, or even the Due Process Clause contained in Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution. The text of these constitutional provisions is quoted in full below. ‘All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.’ Sec. 11, N.D. Constitution. ‘In criminal prosecutio…”
• Patterson v. City of Bismarck, 1973 ND 70 (1973, Friederich, J.)
• Soo Line Railroad Company v. City of Wilton, 1969 ND 53 (1969, Paulson, J.)
• Collette v. Matejcek, 1966 ND 73 (1966, Teigen, J.)
• In re the Confirmation & Approval of the Master Contract Between the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District & the United States, 1966 ND 46 (1966, Knudson, J.) · quotes the provision
• Nord v. Guy, 1966 ND 16 (1966, Knudson, J.)
• State ex rel. Paulson v. Meier, 1964 ND 19 (1964, Morris, J.)
• Gripentrog v. City of Wahpeton, 1964 ND 7 (1964, Strutz, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…lfare of the State and its municipal subdivisions, by assisting in the establishment of additional plants and industries in the State of North Dakota, is in the public interest and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution. 12. Section 195 of the North Dakota Constitution authorizes the State and any county or city to engage in any industry, enterprise, or business except the business of dealing in intox…”
• Menz v. Coyle, 1962 ND 37 (1962, Strutz, J.)
• Kessler v. Thompson, 1956 ND 5 (1956, Johnson, J.)
• Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. City of Grand Forks, 1955 ND 53 (1955, Burke, J.)
• Lindberg v. Benson, 1955 ND 20 (1955, Burke, J.) · quotes the provision
• Northwestern Improvement Co. v. County of Morton, 1951 ND 13 (1951, Morris, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…tizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens.'-Section 20 of Constitution of the State of North Dakota. "No person shall be * * * deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'-Section 13 of Constitution of State of North Dakota. 'No state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.…”
• City of Fargo v. Sathre, Atty. Gen. of North Dakota, 1949 ND 4 (1949, Nuessle, J.)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 45-135 (1945)
• Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 1944 ND 37 (1944, Burke, J.)
• State v. Cromwell, 1943 ND 22 (1943, Nuessle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…hat it unreasonably curtails the right to engage in the business of photography and, on that account, is unconstitutional and void as violating sections 1 and 13 of the Constitution of the state of North Dakota. 2. Due process of law as that term is used in section 13 of the Constitution of the state of North Dakota, providing that "no person shall *** be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" means the law of the land; that which secures the individual fro…”
• Home Owners' Loan Corporation v. Wright, County Treasurer, 1941 ND 56 (1941, Morris, J.) · construes
  • “…ate taxes without paying the mortgagors extended personal property taxes and that if construed to so apply, it impairs the obligation of plaintiff's mortgage contract and deprives the plaintiff of its property without due process of law in violation of [*862] section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota and section 1 of article 14 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Chapter 242, Session Laws, N.D.1929, is entitled: "An Act to amend and reenact Sections 2174…”
• Werner v. Riebe (State, Interveners), 1941 ND 7 (1941, Burke, J.)
• Marks v. City of Mandan (Stutsman, Intervener), 1941 ND 2 (1941, Morris, J.) · construes
  • “…ave been raised. It is urged that if the statute in question be construed so as to render the city generally liable for deficiencies in its special improvement funds, and to authorize the levy of a general tax for the payment of such deficiencies, it violates section 13 of the North Dakota constitution, and section 14 of the United States constitution. These sections embrace what is generally known as the due process of law clause. In support of this contention, it is urged that the ta…”
• Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation v. Berzel, 1940 ND 12 (1940, Burke, J.) · construes
  • “…rds "all other judgments and liens", as used in the statutory provision above quoted, do not include mortgages and (2) that if the words "all other judgments and liens" be construed to include mortgages, such construction would render the statute violative of Sections 13 and 16 of the Constitution of North Dakota, Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States and Section 1 of Article 14 of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, in that, under such constr…”
• Murray v. Mutschelknaus (State, Intervenors), 1940 ND 9 (1940, Morris, J.)
• Magnuson v. Breher (Farmers State Bank of Anamoose, Interveners.), 1939 ND 12 (1939, Nuessle, J.)
• Federal Farm Mortgage Corp. v. Falk, 1937 ND 20 (1937, Burke, J.)
• State v. Goeson, 1935 ND 32 (1935, Burr, J.)
• State ex rel. Haggart v. Nichols, State Tax Com’r, 1935 ND 13 (1935, Morris, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…provisions are mentioned in the complaint, and it is alleged that the law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the following three provisions of the State Constitution: Section 13. "No person shall * * * be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Section 176. "Taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property including franchises, within the territorial limits of t…”
• Walstad v. Dawson, 1934 ND 2 (1934, Nuessle, J.)
• Peterson v. Panovitz, 1932 ND 63 (1932, Christianson, J.)
• Bratberg v. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co., Inc., 1931 ND 125 (1931, Burke, J.)
• Lockwood v. Baird, State Food Commissioner, 1930 ND 68 (1930, Christianson, J.)
• Northwestern Improvement Co. v. State, 1928 ND 82 (1928, Burke, J.)
• Power v. Williams, 1925 ND 86 (1925, Johnson, J.)
• Milhollan v. Great Northern Railway Co., 1925 ND 88 (1925, Burke, J.)
• Hustad v. International Oil Co., 1925 ND 10 (1925, Johnson, J.)
• State ex rel. Dushek v. Watland, 1924 ND 130 (1924, Christianson, J.)
• Klein v. Hutton, 1922 ND 132 (1922, Grace, J.)
• County of Grand Forks v. Cream of Wheat Co., 1918 ND 155 (1918, Christianson, J.)
• Cofman v. Ousterhous, State Dairy Com'r, 1918 ND 108 (1918, Bruce, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…s license. Further, that the Dairy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor had no jurisdiction to revoke the license of this man for the reason that that portion of the amendment above set out is unconstitutional and void, in violation of section 13 of the Constitution of the state of North Dakota, which provision provides that no man shall be deprived of his property without due process of law, and also article 5 of the amendment of the Constitution of the United…”
• State ex rel. Miller, Atty. Gen., v. Leech, 1916 ND 68 (1916, Goss, J.)
• State v. Fargo Bottling Works Co., 1910 ND 2 (1910, Ellsworth, J.) · quotes the provision
• State ex rel. McCue, Atty. Gen., v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 1909 ND 40 (1909, Fisk, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…States, known as the "commerce clause," which confers upon Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" nor does it violate the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution, nor section 13 of the Constitution of North Dakota. providing, in effect, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The legislative assembly possesses the undoubted power, under secti…”
• Soliah v. Cormack, 1908 ND 68 (1908, Fisk, J.)
• State ex rel. Flaherty v. Hanson, 1907 ND 55 (1907, Fisk, J.)

• Aune v. State, 2024 ND 99 (2024, Tufte, J.)
• Williams v. Williams, et al., 2021 ND 134 (2021, McEvers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 13: “…The government may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. Due process requires parties receive "adequate notice" and "a fair opportunity to be heard." Schmalle v. Schmalle, 1998 ND 201, ¶ 9, 586 N.W.2d 677. "[T]he requirements imposed by due process are flexible and variable…”
• Arnegard, et al. v. Arnegard Township, 2018 ND 80 (2018, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 29: “…luable property right in the form of the conditional use permit. "The state and federal constitutions provide the State may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. *See* U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 ; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. 'The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." ' *In re N.A.* , 2016 ND 91 , ¶ 10, 879 N.W.2d 82 (quoting *Mathews v. Eldridge*, 424 U.S. 3…”
• Beach Railport, LLC v. Michels, et al., 2017 ND 240 (2017, VandeWalle, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 25: “…lained the constitutional concerns for due process considerations: The state and federal constitutions provide the State may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" In re N.A., 2016 ND 91, ¶ 10, 879 N.W.2d 82 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 3…”
• Coon, et al. v. N.D. Dep't of Health, et al., 2017 ND 215 (2017, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 28: “…The state and federal constitutions provide the State may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. *See* U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.' " *In re N.A.,* 2016 ND 91, ¶ 10, 879 N.W.2d 82 (quoting *Mathews v. Eldridge,* 424 U.S.…”
• Paving District 476 Group, et al. v. City of Minot, 2017 ND 176 (2017, Tufte, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 18: “…Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." Article I, section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution also states, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."…”
• Interest of N.A. (Confidential), 2016 ND 91 (2016, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 10: “…l right to due process because her report was relied on in terminating his parental rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment no State may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Article I, section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution also provides: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at…”
• Interest of T.S. (CONFIDENTIAL), 2011 ND 118 (2011, Maring, J.)
• Interest of K.J., et al., 2010 ND 46 (2010, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 16: “…y person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law...." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Further, the North Dakota Constitution provides: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." *Mathews v. Eldridge,*424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (quotation omitted).…”
• Interest of D.C.S.H.C. (CONFIDENTIAL)(CONSOLIDATED w/20060338), 2007 ND 102 (2007, Sandstrom, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 11: “…Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no State may "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law...." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Article I, section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution also provides: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." "The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard 'at a…”
• State v. Haibeck (Cross-Ref. w/20040060), 2006 ND 100 (2006, Maring, J.)
• In re Guardianship of Barros, 2005 ND 122 (2005, Maring, J.)
• Hoff, et al. v. Berg, 1999 ND 115 (1999, Maring, J.)
• North Dakota Commission on Medical Competency v. Racek, 1995 ND 13 (1995, Meschke, J.) · construes, quotes the provision
  • “…by due process of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.... Although those state constitutional sections are tangentially relevant, Dr. Doe has inexplicably failed to cite the specific due process section in N.D. Const. Art. I, § 12: “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Dr. Doe’s argument concentrates principally upon reputation as a protected interest. The crux of this case is not, however, w…”
• Jensen v. Zuern, 1994 ND 108 (1994, Hoberg, J.)
• State v. Thompson, 1993 ND 148 (1993, Levine, J.)
• Mund v. Rambough, 1988 ND 208 (1988, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…stice administered without sale, denial or delay. Suits may be brought against the state in such manner, in such courts, and in such cases, as the legislative assembly may, by law, direct.” Rambough might also have had in mind the following part of Article I, Section 12, of the North Dakota Constitution which guarantees due process of law: “No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Helen claims that permitting service of notice by regist…”
• State v. Kopp, 1988 ND 19 (1988, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…home; and that the Kopp claim for $68,805 in damaged personal property did not comport with the agents’ inspection of the Kopp residence after the fire. Terry raises three issues on appeal. First, she asserts that she was denied due process under Article I, Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution. Second, she argues that the trial court should have granted a new trial based on her discovery of new evidence, namely, a letter to the insurer in which she suggested that Clinton shoul…”
• Kobilansky v. Liffrig, 1984 ND 207 (1984, Sand, J.)
• In Interest of MR, 1983 ND 89 (1983, Sand, J.)
• Herman v. Magnuson, 1979 ND 50 (1979, VandeWalle, J.)
• In Interest of RH, 1978 ND 15 (1978, Pederson, J.)
• Hebron Brick Co. v. Robinson Brick & Tile Co., 1975 ND 69 (1975, Paulson, J.)
• Smith v. Woodley, 1969 ND 3 (1969, Paulson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…are defective and void, within the purview of Section 32—22—17(3) of the North Dakota Century Code, for the following reasons: that he was denied a fair trial in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and of Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution, because his counsel did not secure the testimony of material witnesses for and in his behalf. While Smith’s present court-appointed counsel has directed his argument toward the issue of…”
• State v. Miller, 1966 ND 74 (1966, Strutz, J.) · quotes the provision
• State v. Whiteman, 1954 ND 57 (1954, Johnson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…. Magrum, 76 N.D. 527. 531, 532, 38 N.W.2d 358, 360, and the authorities there cited. There is another and additional reason why the judgment of conviction must be set aside. That leads us to the consideration of the second main contention of the defendant. Section 13 of the North Dakota constitution guarantees to one accused of crime the right to appear and defend in person and with counsel. Sections 27–0831, 29–0127, and 29–1303 of the North Dakota Revised Code of 1943 are legislat…”
• State ex rel. Johnson v. Broderick, 1947 ND 17 (1947, Christianson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…al.App. 443, 269 P. 719; Reichert v. Turner, supra; Ryan v. Nygaard, supra. It is further contended that Norman Nemmers 'was deprived of his liberty without due process of law in violation of the Constitution of North Dakota and of the United States [Const. § 13; U.S.Const. Amend. 14]; that he was not granted the right of counsel to which he was entitled under said constitution; nor informed of such right; that he was not informed of his right to have witnesses attend in his be…”
• Mazakahomni v. State, 1947 ND 1 (1947, Burke, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ere violated. He asserts that he is being deprived of his liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and that the proceedings which culminated in his incarceration were had in violation of Section 13 of the North Dakota Constitution, which provides: 'In criminal prosecutions in any court whatever, the party accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial; to have the process of the court to compel the atte…”
• State v. Barnes, 1915 ND 1 (1915, Goss, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…ons of the Code of Criminal Procedure are more or less related but these are sufficient from which to determine this case, taken in connection with common-law rules of which the statutes are in the main, if not entirely, but declaratory. The defendant invokes section 13 of our state Constitution, providing that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense," and the similar provision of the fifth amendment to the federal Constitution that "nor shall any person be subje…”
• Nind v. Myers, 1906 ND 50 (1906, Engerud, J.)
• State v. McKnight, 1898 ND 33 (1898, Wallin, J.)
• State v. Markuson, 1897 ND 61 (1897, Bartholomew, J.)

• Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al., 2025 ND 199 (2025, per curiam) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 1: “…actment unconstitutional unless at least four of the members of the court so decide." N.D. Const. art. VI, § 4. Justice Crothers, joined by Justice McEvers and District Judge Narum, concluded N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 is unconstitutionally vague under article I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution. Justice Tufte, joined by Chief Justice Jensen, concluded N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-19.1 is not unconstitutional under either article I, § 1 or article I, § 12 of the North Dakota Constitution.…”
• Liquid Hospitality v. Bd. of City Commissioners of the City of Fargo, 2025 ND 136 (2025, Jensen, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 11: “…Under the North Dakota Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. Vague laws are unconstitutional because they do not give fair warning and allow for discriminatory enforcement. City of Fargo v. Roehrich, 2021 ND 145, ¶ 6, 963 N.W.2d 248. Vague laws may trap the innocent because they…”
• Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women's Clinic. et al. v. Wrigley, et al., 2025 ND 26 (2025, per curiam) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 4: “…/b/a Red River Women's Clinic and the individual physicians, on behalf of themselves and their patients, subsequently filed an amended complaint with two claims. The first alleges the law violates the physicians' right to due process under N.D. Const. art. I, § 12 because it is unconstitutionally vague. The second claim alleges the law violates pregnant women's right to life and health preserving care under N.D. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 12. After the plaintiffs filed their amended c…”
• Interest of D.D. (CONFIDENTIAL), 2018 ND 201 (2018, Tufte, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 7: “…No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV ; N.D. Const. art. I, § 12. Stemming from this guarantee [of due process] is the concept that vague statutes are void. *Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co.*, 269 U.S. 385 , 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). "[A] statute which either forb…”
• City of Belfield v. Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44 (2007, Sandstrom, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 5: “…Kilkenny argues that the city ordinance violates his right to substantive due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution, because the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague on its face.…”
• City of Fargo v. Stensland, 1992 ND 204 (1992, Johnson, J.)
• In Interest of EB, 1980 ND 2 (1980, Pederson, J.)
• City of Bismarck v. Materi, 1970 ND 35 (1970, Erickstad, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…e Opinion of the Justices, 103 N.H. 268, 270, 169 A.2d 762. Opinion of the Justices, 108 N.H. 103, 229 A.2d 188, 192, 193 (1967). [*544] This brings us to the last issue to be determined in this case and that is whether the provisions of paragraph C of Subsection 13 of Ordinance 22.0401 make the ordinance unconstitutional. Paragraph C reads: Nothing in this ordinance shall apply to any person who in good faith observes a day other than Sunday as a sabbath if he refrains from engagi…”

The sidebar keeps a curated digest; this page is the complete record.