The North Dakota Supreme Court heard oral argument Wednesday in State of North Dakota v. Eric James Gru, file number 2025001010, on an appeal asking the court to overturn convictions and to reverse a district court order denying a Rule 29 motion for acquittal.

The appellant, who identified himself in court as Eric Grewe and who appeared on his own behalf, told the justices he was seeking reversal of convictions for controlled-substance paraphernalia and driving while suspended and asked that other charges be dismissed because evidence was “unlawfully obtained.” “I'm here because I feel that the judicial could do better as far as expectations for procedure, liberties of the citizens of this state,” Grewe said during his argument.

Grewe told the court he spent 30 days in custody after a trial and said he was denied access to paperwork and notes he said were necessary to pursue post-trial motions. He said a third party — his significant other — filed the Rule 29 motion on his behalf after he was unable to obtain or file documents while jailed. Grewe also told the court that, three days after a transcript-related reversal in the lower court, his significant other was charged with the unauthorized practice of law, which he characterized as retaliatory.

A justice questioned Grewe about the timing of his filings and whether his notice of appeal was timely under the court's rules. The court record shows a judgment and an order denying the Rule 29 motion in the district court; Grewe said his notice of appeal included language appealing the order denying Rule 29 and the underlying judgment. The justices pressed on procedural questions, including whether Grewe had attempted to access mail or court papers while in custody.

The district court judge who denied the Rule 29 motion was identified in argument as Judge Hoebee (transcript spells the name variably). The court's minute entries and the district court order denying the motion were the documents discussed; the appellees did not request argument, the clerk noted at the start of the session.

After oral argument, the Supreme Court took the case under advisement and did not announce a decision. The sitting justices were Daniel Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers, Jared Tufte, Douglas Barr and John Jensen. The court adjourned until 10:45 a.m.

The appellant framed much of his submission around access to the courts for self-represented litigants, the role of judges in policing prosecutorial practice, and the effect of custody on the ability to preserve post-trial rights. He asked the court to reverse the denial of the Rule 29 motion and to reverse the judgment as to the convictions he identified. The court did not rule at the hearing.

The record of this session will be part of the appellate record the justices consider in determining whether the district court erred in denying the Rule 29 motion or in procedural rulings about the notice of appeal and related filings.