Court Opinion

ID: 9736913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:09:49.704002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.365926
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur that the “actual physical control” statute applied to Schwalk and that it was constitutional. I respectfully dissent from the holding that the trial court erred in admitting the results of Sehwalk’s blood test.
Without evidence, the majority opinion conjectures that “[fjailure to invert the vial calls into question the scientific accuracy of the blood alcohol test results.” This speculation proceeds from an assumption that the State Toxicologist’s reason for each one of his directions “must be to ensure the scientific accuracy and reliability of the test results.” I am unwilling to so conclude without evidence.
In fact, we do not know whether a step to “prevent clotting” of the sample relates to scientific reliability or to some other reason, for example, laboratory convenience for assaying the sample. For all we know, the State Toxicologist required certification of all essential steps for the scientific reliability of the blood test. The fact that he suggested additional steps, other than those certified by the “nurse or medical technician,” does not make those added steps indispensable. It is for the State Toxicologist, not this court, to decide what determines whether the sample was properly drawn and what affects its scientific reliability.
The majority opinion correctly observes that the State “did not prove that step four ... had been completed.” (Emphasis added). But, in my view, there is no evidentia-ry rule or statutory dictate that the State *326must do so. Only assumption and conjecture suggest such a need.
I agree that the various subsections of NDCC 39-20-07 should be construed together to give effect to the entire statute. I do not agree that the phrase, “properly obtained,” in subsection 5 should have this court’s notions about “scientific reliability” amended to it. Nor do I think that judicial amendment should override the legislated presumption in subsection 10 that a blood sample was “properly drawn.”
This report contained the statement signed by the nurse as prescribed by the State Toxicologist:
“I state under the penalties of perjury that I withdrew the blood specimen from the above subject and the information given in this section is true and correct.”
The legislature has directed that this is “prima facie evidence that the blood sample was properly drawn.” The legislature has also declared “no further foundation for the admission of [the report] may be required.” NDCC 39-20-07(10). No published rule of evidence says otherwise. By adding essential requirements to those stipulated by the State Toxicologist, the majority opinion thwarts an important legislative policy.
There is no gross unfairness to a driver in admitting the test report in a case like this. If, in fact, the assumed foundational detail not proven by the State seriously affects the “scientific reliability” of the test, the driver may show that. Indeed, the legislature has given each driver cost-free access to the persons involved in each test, thus fairly balancing the usual cost-savings to the public through the abbreviation of routine scientific testimony about every test. Subsection 9 of NDCC 39-20-07 says:
“Notwithstanding any statute or rule to the contrary, the defendant in any criminal proceeding may subpoena, without cost to the defendant, the person who conducted the chemical analysis referred to in this section to testify at the trial on the issue of the amount of alcohol, drugs, or a combination thereof in the defendant’s blood, breath, saliva, or urine at the time of the alleged act.”
Where there was probable cause to believe the driver was drunk, the legislature has sought thus to shift the burden of going forward with evidence to the driver to show error in the test. The majority opinion does not credit this purpose. This adds to the social cost of controlling drunk drivers on our highways.
I agree that a trial court may properly refuse to allow evidence of a test report not “properly obtained and fairly administered.” But only evidence can show that, not the lack of evidence. Only real, not imaginary, defects in a blood test should prevent its use as evidence. See State v. Vetsch, 368 N.W.2d 547, 549 (N.D.1985). Therefore, I do not agree that admission of a report with a possible, but unconfirmed, defect was reversible error.
We should review the evidentiary admission of a test report under our North Dakota Rules of Evidence which “vest[] wide discretion in the trial court to control the introduction of evidence.” Explanatory Notes to Rules 403 and 401, NDREv. Generally, lack of proof about compliance with one particular procedure should reflect only on the weight of a test report, not its admission. Only if the variance is confirmed to be critical to its evidentiary worth, to the satisfaction of the trial judge, should the test report be excluded. See my dissents in Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner, 369 N.W.2d 650 (N.D.1985); Schirado v. North Dakota State Highway Commissioner, 382 N.W. 2d 391 (N.D.1986); State v. Reil, 409 N.W. 2d 99 (N.D.1987); and State v. Nygaard, 426 N.W.2d 547 (N.D.1988). We should not adhere to technical evidentiary notions which have been bypassed by experience and by rule, as well as by legislation.
In this case, we do not know whether, in fact, there was a failure to follow step 4 of the directions. Nor do we know how it may have affected the test result, if at all. This driver chose not to submit any evidence about the scientific reliability of the test report if step 4 of the directions was *327omitted. He did not even establish that the step was omitted.
Because this driver was not foreclosed from showing scientific unreliability of the test report (if that was the case), and because I believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the report, I would affirm on all points. However, at the retrial, the State is certainly free to offer evidence that step 4 of the test was carried out, or, if it was not, that its omission did not seriously reduce the reliability of the results.