Court Opinion

ID: 9690014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:51:43.756215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.227465
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring in the result.
Zimmerman raises four issues on appeal:
“1. Was probable cause necessary, pursuant to N.D.C.C. 29-29-21 for the stop of Zimmerman’s vehicle?
“2. Pursuant to Rules ' 802 and 803 N.D.R.Ev. were certain exhibits improperly accepted into evidence, and if said documents were improperly accepted, should the court have admitted the blood test results?
“3. Were devices used in the testing process which were not approved by the State Toxicologist?
“4. Was the approved method to conduct blood testing used?”
I agree with the majority’s analysis and resolution of the first two issues. The simple answer to the third issue is because Zimmerman did not sustain his burden of proving the autosampler and recorder-integrator were devices used to analyze his blood sample, the trial court did not err in admitting the test results. Schense v. Hjelle, 386 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Levine, J., VandeWalle, J., concurring) (N.D.1986). I would not address issue four because Zimmerman did not brief that issue. His argument in toto consisted of the following question: “How can a blood test be done with a device and according to methods approved by the State Toxicologist when the only device approved by the State Toxicologist is operated without direction from the approved method?” The answer is not ours to give. Zimmerman should have sought it from the State Toxicologist or his own expert.
The problem I have with the majority opinion is the breadth of its response to Zimmerman’s sparse four pages of paltry argument. I would have preferred to use a peashooter, not a Uzi.
I concur in the affirmance of the conviction.