FirstAlerts

Minot Couple Charged After Infant's Remains Found Encased in Concrete

Sarah and Craig Kerzmann face charges including failure to report a child's corpse and domestic violence, according to Minot Police. The case remains undecided.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 24, 2026, 3:52 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 24, 2026, 3:34 p.m. ETWritten Aug 24, 2026, 3:52 p.m. ET
A Minot couple has been formally in connection with the discovery of an infant's remains encased in concrete in a home closet, according to Valley News Live. The matter is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; the charges are allegations and the case remains undecided. Sarah Kerzmann, 45, and Craig Michael Kerzmann, 49, were in . Sarah Kerzmann faces charges of failure to report the corpse of a child and disturbing a human burial site. Craig Kerzmann faces a charge of domestic violence involving serious bodily injury, the outlet reported. The charges stem from an investigation by the Minot Police. The couple has been but not yet tried; they are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. The case is ongoing and no final determination has been made.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 24, 2026, 3:52 p.m. ETFirst report

    Minot Couple Charged After Infant's Remains Found Encased in Concrete

    A Minot couple has been formally charged in connection with the discovery of an infant's remains encased in concrete in a home closet, according to a report from Valley News Live on August 24, 2026.

    Sarah Kerzmann, 45, is charged with failure to report the corpse of a child and disturbing a human burial site. Craig Michael Kerzmann, 49, is charged with domestic violence involving serious bodily injury. The charges were filed in Ward County District Court, and the investigation was conducted by Minot Police.

    The charges are allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The case remains at the charging stage, and no trial date has been set. As the matter is only at the charging stage, it is undecided and has not been resolved in court.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 124 Aug 2026, 19:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 124 Aug 2026, 19:52current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.