State v. Gum

2025 ND 34
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 13, 2025
DocketNo. 20240331
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 ND 34 (State v. Gum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Gum, 2025 ND 34 (N.D. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2025 ND 34

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Christopher James Gum, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240331

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Stephannie N. Stiel, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Nicholas S. Samuelson, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Christopher J. Gum, self-represented, Jamestown, N.D., defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. State v. Gum No. 20240331

[¶1] Christopher James Gum appeals from a district court order denying his motion for return of seized property under N.D.R.Crim.P. 41(e). On appeal, Gum argues the district court erred by denying his motion to return his property without an evidentiary hearing. The district court denied Gum’s motion, citing State v. New Holland, 2015 ND 223, 869 N.W.2d 136, and finding the motion was not properly before the court under Rule 41(e).

[¶2] Under Rule 41, Gum seeks an evidentiary hearing on his motion for return of property “to determine facts involving property and the transfer of the property to a [third] party whom holds no interest in said property.” However, Gum concedes law enforcement “transferred” the property to a third party who disposed of the property. On a Rule 41 motion, “[t]he court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion.” N.D.R.Crim.P. 41(e). A factual issue was not before the court. Instead, Gum seeks compensatory damages for the lost property. After review of the record, we summarily affirm the district court order denying Gum’s motion for return of seized property under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7). See New Holland, 2015 ND 223, ¶ 18 (concluding claims for compensatory damages against the State for lost or destroyed property must comply with N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12.2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. New Holland
2015 ND 223 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 ND 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gum-nd-2025.