STATE v. GUM (2025)

[¶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, 869 N.W.2d 136 (concluding claims for compensatory damages against the State for lost or destroyed property must comply with N.D.C.C. ch. 32-12.2).

Per Curiam.

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