Title: State v. Gawryluk
Citation: 351 N.W.2d 94
Docket Number: 994
State: north-dakota
Issuer: north-dakota Supreme Court
Date: June 28, 1984

351 N.W.2d 94 (1984) The STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James GAWRYLUK, Defendant and Appellee. Crim. No. 994. Supreme Court of North Dakota. June 28, 1984. *95 Jay V. Brovold, State's Atty., Medora, for plaintiff and appellant. Ronald A. Reichert [argued] of Freed, Dynes, Reichert &amp; Buresh, Dickinson, for defendant and appellee. GIERKE, Justice. This is an appeal by the State from an order entered in the Billings County Court granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the result of a breathalyzer test. We dismiss the appeal. The appellee, James Gawryluk, was charged with the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of § 39-08-01, of the North Dakota Century Code.[1] Prior to trial, Gawryluk filed a motion to suppress evidence of the result of a breathalyzer test on the following grounds: Gawryluk filed a brief in support of his motion and an accompanying affidavit. The State filed its brief in opposition to Gawryluk's motion to suppress. The County Court then took the matter under advisement, pursuant to Rule 3.2, NDROC. In its memorandum opinion dated January 4, 1984, the County Court made the following conclusions of law: The State has brought this appeal pursuant to § 29-28-07(5), N.D.C.C., which provides that the State may appeal from an order suppressing evidence: In this case, the statement required by § 29-28-07(5), N.D.C.C., to be filed by the prosecuting attorney states, in pertinent part, as follows: The right of appeal in North Dakota is statutory and is a jurisdictional matter which we may consider sua sponte. State v. Lawson, 321 N.W.2d 514 (N.D.1982); State v. Jefferson Park Books, Inc., 314 N.W.2d 73 (N.D.1981). The State has only such right of appeal in a criminal action as is conferred by law. State v. Fields, 294 N.W.2d 404 (N.D.1980); State v. McEnroe, 69 N.D. 445, 287 N.W. 817 (1939). One attempting an appeal must show his right thereto. City of Bismarck v. Walker, 308 N.W.2d 359 (N.D.1981). Section 29-28-07(5), N.D.C.C., requires a prosecuting attorney to establish his right to appeal by explaining how the granting of a motion to suppress has rendered evidence insufficient as a matter of law or how the State's case has been effectively destroyed. The explanation may be contained in the statement filed pursuant to § 29-28-07(5), N.D.C.C., or in the State's brief filed for the purposes of an appeal. State v. Dilger, 322 N.W.2d 461, 463 (N.D. 1982). It need not be based on the record, but may include other evidence in order to establish that further prosecution without the suppressed evidence would be futile, not just somewhat more difficult. State v. Frank, 350 N.W.2d 596, 598 (N.D.1984). A review of the prosecutor's statement is to be guided by "the utmost deference for the prosecutor's judgment in evaluating the remaining proof". State v. Dilger, supra 322 N.W.2d at 463. We will not dismiss the State's appeal unless the prosecution's determination of the need for suppressed evidence is clearly inconsistent with the record or is without foundation in reason or logic. State v. Frank, supra 350 N.W.2d at 598; State v. Dilger, supra 322 N.W.2d at 463. To state that we will defer to the prosecutor's judgment is not, however, the same as saying that the prosecutor need offer no support for his conclusion. A statement that merely paraphrases the language of the statute is clearly inadequate. State v. Frank, supra. In State v. Dilger, supra 322 N.W.2d at 464, *97 we quoted from the opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Kinn, 288 Minn. 31, 178 N.W.2d 888, 890 (1970), describing the showing the prosecution must make in order to obtain appellate review: See also State v. Hicks, 301 Minn. 350, 222 N.W.2d 345 (1974). In this case the prosecutor's showing is clearly inadequate. He merely asserts that the evidence, in the absence of the chemical test results, is insufficient; purportedly because it is "subjective". That will be true in any prosecution for driving under the influence of alcohol. The suppression of chemical test results does not, however, automatically establish a ground for appeal because the offense of driving while intoxicated may be established without such evidence. State v. Frank, supra. Although chemical test results may well be critical to the prosecution in a great many cases, without knowledge of the evidence available to the prosecution we are unable to determine if this may be such a case. Because we have concluded that the prosecution's statement is insufficient to establish this court's jurisdiction and consequently the appeal must be dismissed, we will not discuss the merits. Any such discussion would be purely advisory. For the reasons stated in this opinion, the appeal is dismissed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and PEDERSON, VANDE WALLE and SAND, JJ., concur. [1] Driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor is a violation of § 39-08-01(1)(b), N.D. C.C.