State v Neilson

Neilson appealed his child sex abuse convictions and sentences. The panel affirmed. It held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Neilson’s mistrial motion as the testimony that he declined to talk to police was never mentioned after it was given and the district court gave a curative instruction. It held there was no basis for a sue sponte directed verdict as child identified Neilson by name as the perpetrator and there was no evidence anyone else committed the crimes. It finally affirmed the consecutive sentences holding the district court considered all statutory factors and Neilson failed to provide any reason the sentences were clearly excessive.

State v Cook

Cook appealed her DUI conviction. The panel affirmed. It held that the record supported the finding that Cook had actual physical control of the ATV here as she assisted a ten year old child steer the ATV by guiding her on the shoulders. It held the breathalyzer test results were properly admitted as the machine keeps track of the required 15 minute observation period. It finally rejected Cook’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument holding the failure to develop a more though theory of why the breathalyzer results should have been suppressed would not have changed the outcome.

Goldenwest Federal Credit Union v Kenworthy

Goldenwest appealed summary judgment to Kenworthy in its action to collect the balance owed on a car loan. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that even if the district court was correct that the change of payment amount was an oral modification to the loan and the limitations period was thus four years instead of six, there was no evidence that the loan due date was accelerated and the action was field less than four years after the note became mature and due and thus judgment as matter of law was not correct here. It also reversed the attorney fee award to Kenworthy as she is no longer a prevailing party.

Blocker v Blocker

Father appealed the district court order allowing mother unsupervised visitation with their son. The panel reversed and remanded for fact finding. It held that the district court made no finding of a change of circumstances or any findings about the best interests of the child and thus meaningful appellate review was impossible. It held that father’s other arguments were inadequately briefed as they did not provide reasoned analysis of authority.

State v Moosman

Moosman appealed his prison sentence arguing he should have received probation. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court permissibly chose a prison sentence as Moosman had been convicted three times of violating a protective order by texting the protected person about issues unrelated to their child and Moosman failed to prove that the district court’s concerns that repeated efforts to control the protected person through the texts demonstrated dangerousness was improper.