STATE v. KRALL (2026)

[¶1] Shawnee Lynn Krall appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury convicted him of two counts of possession of a weapon by an inmate in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12-44.1-21(5)(a) and (b). Krall contends the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel—and the corresponding right under Article I, Section 12 of the North Dakota Constitution—by permitting him to proceed to trial pro se without ever advising him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.

[¶2] After Krall changed his mind about representing himself and unequivocally requested court-appointed counsel nineteen days before trial and renewed a request for counsel on the morning of trial, the district court failed to inquire into Krall's articulated changed circumstances and perfunctorily denied his requests for counsel. The record also shows the court never advised Krall of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation throughout the proceedings below, so the record does not show a knowing and intelligent waiver. Under these circumstances, we summarily reverse the criminal judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and remand for further proceedings. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); State v. Hoff, 2025 ND 215, ¶¶ 13-17, 29 N.W.3d 606; State v. Yost, 2014 ND 209, ¶¶ 18-23, 855 N.W.2d 829.

Per Curiam.

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