The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision denying postconviction relief to Kurt Noel Johnson, who claimed that undisclosed police dash-camera video evidence warranted vacating his conviction.
In *Johnson v. State* (2026 ND 15), the state's highest court rejected Johnson's appeal from a Stutsman County District Court order that denied his application for postconviction relief. Johnson had argued the lower court abused its discretion by rejecting his claim of newly discovered evidence.
The case centered on Johnson's assertion that a police officer testified during his trial that he had "tagged" dash-camera video footage, but the video was never disclosed during the discovery process. Johnson contended this undisclosed evidence required vacation of his conviction "in the interest of justice."
Johnson sought relief under Section 29-32.1-01(1)(e) of the North Dakota Century Code, which permits postconviction relief when "evidence, not previously presented and heard, exists requiring vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice." This statute provides a pathway for defendants to challenge their convictions based on evidence that was not available during their original trial proceedings.
The Supreme Court's per curiam opinion, delivered without identifying a specific author, explained the legal framework governing such claims. Under North Dakota law, applications for postconviction relief based on newly discovered evidence are reviewed using the same standard as motions for new trials under North Dakota Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.
"A motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse the court's denial of the motion unless the court has abused its discretion," the court wrote, citing the recent decision in *Bazile v. State* (2025 ND 128).
To succeed on his newly discovered evidence claim, Johnson faced a multi-part test requiring him to demonstrate several key elements. The opinion indicates that Johnson must show the evidence was discovered after trial and that his failure to learn of the evidence earlier was not due to lack of diligence on his part.
The case was heard by the Honorable Troy J. LeFevre in Stutsman County District Court, part of the Southeast Judicial District. Johnson was represented by Leah Viste of Fargo, while Assistant State's Attorney John M. Gonzalez of Jamestown represented the state. Both parties submitted their arguments on brief rather than presenting oral arguments to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's decision represents the latest development in Johnson's ongoing legal battle. The per curiam opinion format suggests the court viewed the case as relatively straightforward, with all justices agreeing on the outcome without the need for individual authored opinions or dissents.
The dispute highlights broader issues surrounding police evidence disclosure and the discovery process in criminal cases. When officers collect video evidence through dash cameras or body-worn cameras, prosecutors have obligations to disclose such materials to defense counsel during the pretrial discovery phase. Failures in this process can lead to claims of prosecutorial misconduct or grounds for postconviction relief.
However, successfully proving newly discovered evidence claims remains challenging under North Dakota law. Courts apply strict standards to ensure that defendants cannot simply retry their cases based on evidence that could have been discovered through proper investigation during the original proceedings.
The *Johnson* decision follows recent precedent established in *Bazile v. State*, which clarified the standards for reviewing newly discovered evidence claims in the postconviction context. That case reinforced the principle that trial courts have broad discretion in evaluating such claims, and appellate courts will intervene only when that discretion has been clearly abused.
Johnson's case also illustrates the procedural hurdles facing defendants seeking postconviction relief in North Dakota. The state's postconviction statute requires not just the existence of new evidence, but also a showing that such evidence would require vacation of the conviction "in the interest of justice" - a standard that gives courts significant leeway in determining whether relief is warranted.
The Supreme Court's affirmation of the district court's decision effectively ends Johnson's current challenge to his conviction. Unless Johnson can identify additional grounds for relief or appeal to federal court, his conviction will stand despite his claims regarding the undisclosed dash-camera footage.
The case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough pretrial investigation and discovery practices in criminal cases, both for prosecutors who must ensure complete disclosure and for defense attorneys who must diligently seek out potentially exculpatory evidence before trial concludes.