Court Opinion

ID: 9515825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:05:21.284845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:58.845659
License: Public Domain

YANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 28] I concur in Parts I through III of the majority opinion. I respectfully dissent to Parts IV and V of that opinion.
[¶ 29] There is no affidavit or evidence in the record affirmatively establishing that the state crime laboratory director has designated Grieger-Nimmo as the “director’s designee” for purposes of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07. The closest inde*327pendent verification of Grieger-Nimmo’s status as a “director’s designee” may, in fact, be the notary public’s attestation to Grieger-Nimmo’s signature on the certification itself. Nonetheless, while the director of the state crime laboratory would be readily identifiable as an individual holding that position, the “director’s desig-nees” are not as easily identified. Further, although the Department requests this Court to take judicial notice of a listing of the director’s designees posted on the attorney general’s website, N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(7) only permits that the certified records referred to in N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5) and (6) “must be admitted as prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the records.” Thus, the plain language of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(7), rather than supporting the taking of judicial notice, requires the certified records actually be offered into evidence at the administrative hearing to be admitted as prima facie evidence. Because such a listing of the director’s designees is provided on the attorney general’s website, it would seemingly have been a simple matter to obtain the listing and admit it into evidence. Cf. State v. Sivesind, 439 N.W.2d 530, 534 (N.D.1989) (VandeWalle, J., concurring specially).
[¶ 30] Based on the foregoing, I believe the Department failed to lay proper foundation for admission of the blood test into evidence at the administrative hearing. I would conclude the district court did not err in reversing the hearing officer’s decision, albeit for a different reason, and I would affirm the judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the district court.
[¶ 31] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J.