Case Title: State v. Puhr

Citation: 316 N.W.2d 75

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1982-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
316 N.W.2d 75 (1982) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Gary PUHR, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 798. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 11, 1982. *76 Janet Holter Zander, Asst. State's Atty., Williston, for plaintiff and appellee. Brian W. Nelson, Fargo, for defendant and appellant; argued by William Kirschner, Fargo. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. Gary Puhr appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the Williams County Court With Increased Jurisdiction for the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Puhr asserts that the trial court erred by admitting the results of a breathalyzer test showing his blood alcohol content to be .20 percent by weight. For reasons hereafter stated, we affirm. Gary Puhr was stopped and arrested by two Williams County Deputy Sheriffs and charged with the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The officers testified that they were on routine patrol west of Williston during the early morning hours of January 13, 1981. At approximately 1:20 a. m. they observed a white van exit the parking lot of the Club Missouri, turning eastwardly into the oncoming lane of traffic. The officers said the van swerved into the oncoming lane of traffic and that the driver applied the brakes, causing the brake lights to flicker off and on. The officers activated the red lights on their patrol car and the driver pulled the van over to the side of the road and stopped. The driver, Gary Puhr, was approached and asked to perform several roadside sobriety tests. The officers testified that he failed those tests. They also testified that they smelled a strong odor of alcohol on Mr. Puhr's breath. The officers placed Puhr under arrest. That arrest occurred between 1:20 a. m. and 1:25 a. m. Puhr was then taken to the Law Enforcement Center in Williston and given a breathalyzer test which was administered at 1:38 a. m. On June 24, 1981, Puhr was found guilty in Williams County Court by a jury of six persons of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Puhr's sole contention on appeal is that the breathalyzer test was not "fairly administered" because it was not performed according to the method approved by the state toxicologist. The "Approved Method to Conduct Breath Test with Breathalyzer" to which Puhr directs this court was published by the state toxicologist on June 3, 1976, and placed on file with the clerks of the district courts of North Dakota. That method requires that the operator "must ascertain that the subject has had nothing to eat, drink or smoke within twenty minutes prior to the collection of the breath sample." Puhr contends that because he was only under arrest for a maximum of 18 *77 minutes and perhaps only 13 minutes before the test was administered, the operator could not have ascertained that he ingested nothing within 20 minutes of the test. The state toxicologist, Dr. N. G. S. Rao, however, testified during the State's rebuttal that the test results are accurate if the defendant has had nothing to eat, drink or smoke within 10 to 12 minutes prior to the collection of the breath sample. Section 39-20-07 of the North Dakota Century Code provides for the admissibility of chemical analysis of blood, breath, saliva or urine in a trial involving driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. It provides in part: We discussed the foundational requirements needed to show that a breathalyzer test was "fairly administered" in State v. Schneider, 270 N.W.2d 787, 791 (N.D.1978). We said: It is therefore the state toxicologist's approval which is critical. If he testifies at trial, that testimony takes precedence over the approved methods placed on file with the district courts. In this case, the State offered a certified copy of the "Approved Method to Conduct a Breath Test with Breathalyzer" to satisfy the foundational requirement of proving that the test was "fairly administered". The State argued that all requirements of the "approved method" were met. The approved method, however, requires that, "[p]rior to performing the test, the operator must ascertain that the subject has had nothing to eat, drink or smoke within twenty minutes prior to the collection of the breath sample." Puhr objected to the offer of the test results by the State. He argued that he could not have been observed for 20 minutes prior to administration of the test because he had been arrested only 13 to 18 minutes prior to that administration. He therefore asserted that the 20-minute observation requirement had not been met. The court received the test results in evidence over Puhr's objection. At that point in the proceedings, the test results were received without proper foundation. As Puhr was under observation for a maximum of 18 minutes, the 20-minute observation requirement was not met. That foundational defect, however, was later cured when the state toxicologist testified. At the close of the defendant's case, the toxicologist was called in rebuttal *78 by the State. He testified that the 20-minute requirement listed in the approved method was not an absolute requirement but rather a general guideline. He said that a test conducted on a breath sample taken 10 to 12 minutes after the subject had something to eat, drink or smoke would be valid. The error in the premature admission of the test results was harmless error which was cured by the testimony of the state toxicologist. Any error which does not affect the substantial rights of a defendant is to be disregarded. Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Crim.P. In this case, the defendant's substantial rights were not affected by the trial court's error. Although the foundation was faulty at the time of the admission, it was later cured. The defendant did move for a directed verdict (the proper motion would have been a motion for judgment of acquittal[1]) at the end of the State's case and again at the end of his case. That motion, however, was properly denied even though the test results were, at that stage of the proceedings, improperly received into evidence as there was sufficient testimony in the record of Puhr's driving while intoxicated to raise a question of fact for the jury. We said in State v. Salhus, 220 N.W.2d 852, 859 (N.D.1974) that: In State v. Salhus, Id. at 855, the arresting officer observed that the defendant: The arresting officer in Salhus did perform "certain items of a field sobriety test"; however, the results were not made a part of the record. The instant case may be distinguished from Salhus as the arresting officers in this case both testified to the results of the field sobriety tests. Deputy Torgerson testified as follows: Deputy Keith testified as follows: A motion for judgment of acquittal will be granted only if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction of the offense charged. Rule 29, N.D.R.Crim.P. Because of the extensive testimony of officers Torgerson and Keith, we believe the court properly denied Puhr's motion. Additionally, Section 29-21-01, N.D.C.C., provides that after the defendant rests, the parties may offer rebutting testimony only, unless the court, for good reason, *80 in furtherance of justice, or to correct an evidence oversight, permits them to offer evidence upon their original case. We have said it is within the discretion of the court to allow the prosecution to give evidence in aid of the case already made after the defense has rested. State v. Schneider, 53 N.D. 931, 208 N.W. 566 (1926). No objections to the subject matter of the state toxicologist's testimony were made by the defense during the trial. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to offer the testimony of the state toxicologist in rebuttal. As the state toxicologist's rebuttal testimony cured the defect in the foundation for the receipt of the test results, the earlier error in the premature receipt of the test results was harmless. Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Crim.P. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of conviction. SAND, VANDE WALLE, PEDERSON and PAULSON, JJ., concur. [1] The defendant's appropriate motion would have been a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Rule 29, N.D.R.Crim.P. We need not address the issue of the effect of moving for directed verdict rather than a motion for judgment of acquittal, because of our determination that the evidence at the close of the State's case was not insufficient to justify a submission of the case to the jury.