Jun. 6—GRAND FORKS — North Dakota Supreme Court Justice Jerod Tufte filed an opinion Thursday, June 6, affirming the criminal judgment against U.S. House candidate Roland Riemers.

Riemers

was found guilty of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct

on Oct. 10, after a one-day jury trial. One year earlier, Riemers blocked a BNSF railway train, stating it had exceeded the maximum time allowed blocking traffic and was breaking city and state code. Railway staff testified they were fearful of Riemers and had no idea what he planned to do. He attempted to initiate a citizen’s arrest on the train and staff.

After walking away from the train, Riemers set off a road flare against the train tracks, which he testified that he did to prevent the train from leaving the scene before police arrived.

In Riemers’ appeal, he argued the below points. The arguments are followed by Supreme Court opinion rebuttals.

* Riemers argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because his due process rights were violated when the complaint was not properly notarized, and the information filed by the city of Grand Forks was not served to him. The opinion states that a uniform complaint transferred from municipal court is sufficient to commence misdemeanor criminal prosecution in district court, which is what happened in Riemers’ case.

* He argued that the court erred by allowing the city to prosecute him under a city ordinance rather than state law. The opinion states that city code only prohibits conduct that is also prohibited under state law so the city may prosecute disorderly conduct under its own ordinance.

* He argued that the court erred by not ruling or instructing the jury that it’s a statutory right to conduct a citizen’s arrest for an infraction. The opinion states that Riemers waived his right to any claim of error in jury instructions, because when asked if he had comments or requests for additional instructions, he said, “I’m satisfied with them, Your Honor.”

* He argued the court and jury erred because no victim was identified, and a person must be injured for a defendant to be charged with disorderly conduct. The opinion states the information filed in Riemers’ case identifies vehicle operators in surrounding traffic as victims of Riemers obstructing traffic and, further, his actions caused serious alarm to the train staff, according to the opinion.

* He argued that the jury erred because there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. The opinion states that Riemers did not move for a judgment of acquittal at trial which, under North Dakota Century Code, must be done “to preserve the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence for appeal.” Riemers failed to argue the obvious error standard in his appeal. According to state criminal code, “an obvious error or defect that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”