Title: State v. Marks

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

452 N.W.2d 298 (1990) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Debra K. MARKS, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. No. 890276. Supreme Court of North Dakota. March 1, 1990. Schoppert Law Firm, Minot, for defendant and appellant; argued by Thomas K. Schoppert. Merle A. Torkelson (argued), States Atty., Washburn, for plaintiff and appellee. ERICKSTAD, Chief Justice. This is an appeal by Debra K. Marks from a conviction in McLean County Court of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of section 39-08-01 of the North Dakota Century Code. We affirm. In the early morning hours of January 15, 1989, Officer Ricky Richard of the *299 North Dakota Highway Patrol stopped a vehicle for speeding on U.S. Highway 83 in the vicinity of Underwood, North Dakota. The driver did not produce a driver's license, but was identified as Debra K. Marks, the appellant in this case. Officer Richard detected a strong odor of alcohol on Marks' breath and noticed that her eyes appeared glassy and dilated. He asked her to come back to his patrol car for further evaluation and to show her the radar clocking. He attempted to conduct the nystagmus eye gaze test until he learned that Marks had a natural nystagmus in her right eye. Marks correctly recited the alphabet and properly performed a sequence of counting. Because Marks indicated that she had a previous back and neck injury, she was not required to do any physical tests. Marks was then placed under arrest and taken to the Turtle Lake Community Hospital for a blood test. The test showed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.18 percent by weight. A jury trial was held on July 12, 1989. Marks was found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of section 39-08-01, N.D.C.C.[1] On July 18, 1989, Marks filed a motion for a new trial supported by brief and accompanying letter requesting an opportunity for oral argument. The matter was scheduled for oral argument on August 22, 1989.[2] An order denying motion for new trial was entered on August 22, 1989, along with a judgment of conviction. Marks appealed to this Court from the judgment of conviction. On appeal, Marks contends that the prosecutor made an improper comment at trial which shifted the burden of proof to the defendant, thus depriving her of a fair trial in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and equivalent state constitutional provisions, and that Marks was not allowed to submit instructions at the close of evidence or at an earlier time during the trial pursuant to Rule 30 of the North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure. During the trial, Marks attempted to challenge the validity of the results of the blood test. The blood testing procedures used by the State Toxicologist's Office and the specific process used in this case were testified to by Daniel Pederson, a chemist from the Office of the North Dakota State Toxicologist. During closing argument, counsel for Marks repeatedly attacked the qualifications, knowledge, education, and expertise of Pederson. He also attacked the method used at the State Toxicologist's Laboratory in preparing the vials used for the blood testing and in the analysis of the preservatives used in the process. During final rebuttal, the prosecution responded by saying: Upon objection by defense counsel, the following colloquy occurred: The prosecution continued with final rebuttal and Marks made no further mention of the alleged illegal shifting of the burden of proof until her brief in support of her motion for a new trial. On appeal, Marks contends that the statement made by the prosecution was an illegal shift of the burden of proof to the defendant akin to a comment on a defendant's failure to call witnesses. Counsel for Marks argues: In response, the State argues that the allegedly improper statement was "invited" by Marks' attack on the aptitude of Pederson and on the methods employed by the Office of the State Toxicologist. The State also asserts that it was natural for it to remark on a theory which, despite a lack of any evidence to support it, was advanced by Marks, citing State v. Rickel, 69 N.D. 329, 286 N.W. 895 (1939). In Rickel, the State, in rebuttal, made a statement to the effect that a witness, whose name the State had endorsed upon the information, was in California at the time of the trial, and, therefore, was unable to testify. Counsel for the defense objected to the statement, claiming that "it is not properly a matter for argument, there being no evidence offered on the subject nor explanation made of it prior to the State closing its case." However, this Court noted that defense counsel had mentioned to the jury that the State had not called two witnesses to testify. We said: Rickel, 286 N.W. at 898. In a more recent case, State v. Schimmel, 409 N.W.2d 335 (N.D.1987), the State, in closing argument, commented on the defendant's financial status. The defense objected that the comments were prejudicial and thus denied the defendant of a fair trial. We said: Schimmel, 409 N.W.2d at 342-43. In the case at hand, Marks' main defense at trial was the lack of reliability of the blood-alcohol test and of the blood-alcohol testing procedures employed by the Office of the State Toxicologist. Marks had no evidence to support her contentions other than the testimony elicited from Dan Pederson on cross-examination. In light of the attack made by defense counsel, we believe that the response was almost predictable and as invited we conclude as in Schimmel that the comments were not improper and certainly were not prejudicial.[3] In addition we are not convinced that the remarks of the prosecution in this case rise to the level or are equivalent to the remarks in the two Minnesota cases cited to us by Marks, State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 218 N.W.2d 197 (1974) and State v. Parker, 417 N.W.2d 643 (Minn.1988). In Caron, the prosecutor commented on the defendant's failure to call certain alibi witnesses. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that the error, if any, was harmless. In determining which harmless error rule to apply, the court said: In Parker, supra, the prosecutor commented on the defendant's failure to call certain witnesses. In noting that defense counsel did not object or make any attempt to cure the error by addressing the statement effectively in closing argument or by requesting curative instructions, the court again applied the less stringent of the two rules enunciated in Caron. The court said: Parker, 417 N.W.2d at 648. Similarly, in the case at hand, we conclude that even if the prosecution's statements were deemed to have been error, it was harmless error. The State's evidence of guilt, the testimony of the arresting officer, and the 0.18 percent blood-alcohol results were sufficient to allow the jury to find Marks guilty beyond a reasonable doubt despite the alleged improper statement. Thus, under Minnesota standards, we cannot conclude that the alleged error likely played a substantial role in influencing the jury to convict. Under North Dakota standards, the control and scope of opening and closing arguments is largely a matter left to the discretion of the trial court, and a case will not be reversed on the ground that the prosecutor exceeded the scope of permissible closing argument unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Schimmel, 409 N.W.2d 335, 342; State v. Mehralian, 301 N.W.2d 409, 418 (N.D.1981). To establish an abuse of discretion, absent a fundamental error, the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecution's comments in closing argument were improper and prejudicial. In State v. Welch, 426 N.W.2d 550 (N.D.1988), we dealt with the issue of whether or not a prosecutor's disclosure in his opening statement of an accomplice's conviction was prejudicial error requiring a new trial in light of the failure of the defendant to request a cautionary instruction. Upon mention of the conviction, defense counsel promptly objected and the objection was sustained. The prosecutor then continued with his opening statement. We agreed with the defendant that the prosecutor's statement concerning the conviction of the accomplice was clearly improper, but went on to say: State v. Welch, 426 N.W.2d at 553, 554. Similarly, in the case at hand, while defense counsel objected to the statement, we have been unable to find any evidence in the record that he made a request for a curative instruction at that time. We note that the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that prosecutorial error is curable by corrective instructions. See State v. Race, 383 N.W.2d 656, 664 (Minn.1986); State v. Caldwell, 322 N.W.2d 574, 590 (Minn.1982); Tucker v. State, 309 Minn. 482, 489, 245 N.W.2d 199, 203 (1976). In State v. Kunkel, 366 N.W.2d 799 (N.D.1985), this Court noted that jury instructions corrected an allegedly prejudicial statement made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. We said: Kunkel, 366 N.W.2d at 803. In the case at hand, the jury was instructed that arguments or other remarks of an attorney are not evidence. The jury was also told that the State had the burden to prove the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, as in Welch, the allegedly improper statement received very brief attention by the State in the context of the entire closing statement. Having failed to ask for a curative instruction at the time of the allegedly improper statement and the overruling of the motion for a mistrial, we do not believe that Marks is in any stronger position than Welch was. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on the prosecution's allegedly improper statement. Marks next contends that the trial court erred in not allowing her to submit instructions at the close of the evidence or at an earlier time during the trial and in not allowing her to make exceptions to the instructions. Rule 30(b), N.D.R.Crim.P., reads: In the notice of jury trial, the trial court requested that proposed jury instructions be submitted to the court at least ten days prior to trial. No written instructions or requests were submitted by Marks either before or during trial. Following closing arguments, the following colloquy occurred: Marks asserts that Rule 30(b), N.D.R. Crim.P., allows her to submit and settle instructions at the time her counsel made that request, and given the opportunity, she would have: (1) submitted a cautionary instruction regarding the prosecution's comments on testing the blood and shifting the burden of proof; (2) objected to the weight and credibility instruction; and (3) requested the pattern jury instruction as to an expert witness. Generally, each litigant in a case has the right to request instructions upon the issues of the case, State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110, 114 (N.D.1984), and attorneys have the professional responsibility to request or object to specific instructions of points of law resulting from testimony or on developments during trial. State v. Allery, 322 N.W.2d 228, 232, n. 3 (N.D.1982). In State v. Olson, supra, this Court addressed the issue of whether or not a trial court committed reversible error by not giving a jury instruction which was orally proposed to the trial judge after proposed instructions had been submitted. Olson appealed from a jury conviction of failing to immediately stop after colliding with an unattended vehicle and of failing to notify the operator or owner of the vehicle after the accident. During a discussion about jury instructions in chambers, defense counsel requested an instruction as to conscious action. However, counsel did not offer a specific instruction on conscious action, but instead, requested the court to compose such an instruction. As a result, the court gave no instruction on conscious action. We framed the question presented as "whether or not counsel for Olson was obliged to submit a written jury instruction in order to have preserved Olson's objection for appeal." Olson at 114. In finding that the trial court had not committed reversible error, we said: Olson at 114. In the case at hand, counsel for Marks asked to "settle the instructions" after closing argument. The trial court denied the request and counsel for Marks asked to make an offer of proof. That, too, was denied. In chambers, after the guilty verdict was rendered, the following colloquy occurred: Rule 30(b), N.D.R.Crim.P., permits the court to require written requested instructions. Marks did not submit written instructions to the trial court nor has she included any such proposed instructions in her filings to this Court. Marks' counsel did attempt to make an offer of proof as to the requested instructions, yet later admitted in chambers that he had no written instructions to submit to the court. Rule 30(c), N.D.R.Crim.P., provides: The State asserts that written instructions were submitted to counsel by the trial court, but that the court did not ask for exceptions to be noted during the trial, and thus concedes that all instructions given by the court were deemed excepted to and are appealable. In analyzing jury instructions, we have often said: State v. Saul, 434 N.W.2d 572, 576 (N.D. 1989). We believe that the jury instructions were curative of the allegedly prejudicial statement made by the prosecution in that they said: In determining whether or not a trial court has committed error which warrants a new trial, we must consider the entire record and the probable effect of the action alleged to be error in light of all the evidence in order to determine whether or not substantial rights were affected. State v. Allen, 237 N.W.2d 154, 162 (N.D.1975). The error here (the trial court's failure to allow defense counsel to "settle" instructions), as we said in Olson, supra, does not involve Marks' constitutional rights, so it must appear that prejudice occurred, that substantial injury resulted to her case, and that a different decision probably would have resulted absent the error before we can reverse the jury's verdict. Even at this juncture we have not been informed how the instructions that were given were inadequate or misleading or prejudicial. We said in Olson: Olson, 356 N.W.2d at 115. Similarly, in the case at hand, counsel's failure to properly submit proposed written instructions is controlling. For the reasons stated herein, the verdict of the jury and the judgment of conviction of the county court are affirmed. MESCHKE and GIERKE, JJ., concur. VANDE WALLE, concurs in the result. LEVINE, Justice (specially concurring). I write specially to note my departure from that part of the majority opinion that holds that defendant's failure to request a curative instruction waived any argument of prejudice. I do not agree that defendant *307 was obliged to request a curative instruction in light of the court's overruling defendant's objection to the prosecutor's statement. State v. Welch, 426 N.W.2d 550 (N.D. 1988), is inapposite. In Welch, the trial court sustained Welch's objection to the improper statement. Although Welch moved for a mistrial, he did not request a cautionary instruction. We concluded that the failure to request the curative instruction, under the circumstances, waived the argument of prejudice and the failure to give a curative instruction was not obvious error under the circumstances of the case. Underlying our analysis in Welch, as in all cases where a curative instruction is deemed necessary, are the unarticulated premises that if a statement is objected to and the objection is sustained by the trial court, then, because juries are deemed to follow the instructions given by the court, and because many errors are curable by cautionary instructions, and because trial courts are deemed willing to caution juries not to pay attention to improper statements, a curative instruction must be requested to preserve the issue of prejudice. In other words, when an objection to an improper statement is sustained, a request for a cautionary instruction is ordinarily a condition precedent for raising the issue of prejudice on appeal. However, it is sheer folly to expect that a trial judge, who has ruled that a remark is not improper and who has therefore overruled an objection to that remark, will nonetheless give a curative instruction that the jury is to disregard that remark. See, e.g., Ralston v. State, 555 So. 2d 443 (Fla.Ct.App.1990). The law does not demand futile acts and neither should we. In my view, defendant did not waive any claim of prejudice by failing to ask for a curative instruction. The defendant's objection to the argument, overruled by the trial court, was sufficient to preserve the questions of both the propriety of the remark and its prejudicial impact. Accord Hairston v. State, 68 Md.App. 230, 511 A.2d 73 (1986). I agree, however, that the trial court's error, if any, in overruling the objection was harmless under Rule 52(a), NDRCrimP. The instructions given by the trial court on the State's burden of proof and the abundant evidence in support of the verdict assure that the verdict would have been the same without the prosecutor's remark. I, therefore, concur in the result as well as in the rationale for the holding that the trial court did not err in refusing defendant's offer of unwritten instructions. [1] Marks was charged in the alternative with subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of section 39-08-01, N.D.C.C., which read: "1. A person may not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle upon a highway or upon public or private areas to which the public has a right of access for vehicular use in this state if any of the following apply: a. That person has a blood alcohol concentration of at least ten one-hundredths of one percent by weight at the time of the performance of a chemical test within two hours after the driving. b. That person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor." [2] Marks appeared with counsel on August 22, 1989, for oral argument and advised the court that she had nothing further to add and would rely on her brief. The State then indicated it would also rely on its brief. [3] Section 39-20-02, N.D.C.C., allows a person to conduct a test in addition to any administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer. The relevant part of that section reads as follows: "The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer with all costs of an additional test or tests to be the sole responsibility of the person charged. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person does not preclude the admission of the test or tests taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer."