State of North Dakota v. Craig Randall Backlund

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Craig Backlund's conviction for luring a minor by computer based on Internet communications with an undercover police officer posing as a minor. The court held that North Dakota had jurisdiction because Backlund solicited conduct within the state and later traveled there, and that the luring statute did not violate the Commerce Clause or the First Amendment. The court also upheld the statute's registration and notification provisions against procedural due process and double jeopardy challenges.

Holdings

1. North Dakota had jurisdiction to prosecute Backlund because he solicited criminal action within North Dakota while outside the state, the communication was received in North Dakota, and he was later found in North Dakota.
2. The luring-by-computer statute is not a strict-liability offense; conduct not otherwise assigned a culpability level requires willful conduct, meaning intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct.
3. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-05.1 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
4. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-05.1 does not violate the free-speech provisions of the federal or North Dakota Constitutions because it criminalizes willful luring conduct, not protected pure speech.
5. Backlund's criminal conviction supplied procedural due process for mandatory sex-offender registration under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15.
6. The registration and notification provisions of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15 do not violate the federal or state prohibitions against double jeopardy because they are part of the sentencing scheme for the single conviction, not a separate criminal punishment or proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether North Dakota had jurisdiction to prosecute Backlund when he initiated the Internet communications from Minnesota but the communications were received in North Dakota and he traveled to North Dakota to meet the person he believed was a minor.
2. Whether N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-05.1 violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
3. Whether N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-05.1 violates the free-speech provisions of the First Amendment and the North Dakota Constitution when applied to communications with an adult police officer posing as a minor.
4. Whether the registration and notification provisions of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15 violate procedural due process.
5. Whether the registration and notification provisions of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15 violate the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

Disposition

affirmed