Opinion ID: 1839890
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: suppression of intoxilyzer test

Text: Winkler last argues the result of his Intoxilyzer test, a .152 percent blood-alcohol content, should have been suppressed. He contends admitting the result of a test obtained six hours after allegedly driving is irrelevant and prejudicial. Apparently, the State intended to use the result as evidence in its negligent homicide case against Winkler. Because Winkler argued for suppression based on the evidentiary rules of relevance and prejudice, his motion was essentially a pretrial motion in limine to preclude the State from introducing the results of the blood alcohol test into evidence. State v. Simon, 510 N.W.2d 635, 636 (N.D. 1994). The motion was not a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to suppress evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained. Id. Rule 12(b)(3), N.D.R.Crim.P. But counsel's mislabeling of the motion does not affect, for example, its appealability, because under the conditional plea rule, a criminal defendant has the right to appeal an adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion.  [5] Rule 11(a)(2), N.D.R.Crim.P. (emphasis added). A motion in limine is a pretrial motion. Shark v. Thompson, 373 N.W.2d 859, 864 (N.D.1985); McCormick on Evidence § 52, at 202 (4th ed.1992). However, we review a trial court's disposition of a motion in limine under a different standard than a motion to suppress. A trial court has discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant, and its decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Williston Farm Equip., Inc. v. Steiger Tractor, Inc., 504 N.W.2d 545, 548-49 (N.D.1993). Denying Winkler's motion, the trial court ruled Winkler's Intoxilyzer test was relevant to [Winkler's] possible physical condition at the time Carlson was killed. Similar to Winkler's argument, the defendant argued in State v. Miller, 530 N.W.2d 652 (N.D.1995), the results of his blood test administered approximately nine hours after the accident, [were] not relevant to the amount of alcohol in his blood at the time of the accident. Id. at 655. Disagreeing, this court determined the results may be sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to convict a defendant of the non-per se DUI offenses, and concluded the results of the test were properly admitted into evidence. Id. Here, we extend the analysis, and conclude the results of an Intoxilyzer test may well be relevant evidence in a negligent homicide case. See State v. Smaage, 547 N.W.2d 916 (N.D.1996) (adhering to prior holding that it is not error for a trial court to give a jury instruction on DUI in a negligent homicide case); see also Miller, 530 N.W.2d at 655 (citing Commonwealth v. Arizini, 277 Pa.Super. 27, 419 A.2d 643, 650 (1980), in which the court stated [s]o long as a blood test is indicative of a defendant's condition at a relevant time, it is admissible and subject to attack or contradiction by other competent evidence.). [T]he results of an [I]ntoxilyzer test, regardless of when it was given, would be probative evidence, Pitman, 427 N.W.2d at 342, but not necessarily conclusive evidence. See Miller, 530 N.W.2d at 655 (citing Williams v. State, 737 P.2d 360, 363 (Alaska.Ct.App.1987)). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Winkler's motion in limine to exclude the result of his Intoxilyzer test. We affirm in part the trial court's order denying Winkler's motions, but reverse and remand in part for a determination of whether the officers would have sought the warrant to search Winkler's garage had they not seen the details of the damage to Winkler's pickup as a result of their pre-warrant unlawful entry. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and MARING and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.