Court Opinion

ID: 9689925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:49:41.463204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:52.781235
License: Public Domain

MESCHKE, Justice,
concurring.
For reasons explained in my dissent in State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317, 325 *535(N.D.1988), I would hold that the trial court properly admitted this test result. “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, [who has ‘wide discretion ... to control the introduction of evidence’], should the test report be excluded.” Id. at 326.
But, for like reasons, I would also hold that the trial court abused its discretion in this case by not allowing Sivesind’s counsel to comment to the jury on the lack of directions as affecting the weight and credibility of the test.
Therefore, I concur in the remand for a new trial.