Court Opinion

ID: 9739147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:09:33.876548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.254060
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the dismissal of the appeal. However, I would grant Meyer’s motion for costs and attorney’s fees because this appeal is flagrantly groundless under Rule 38, NDRAppP.
The State acknowledged that it deliberately did not call the State Toxicologist, who was present and ready to testify, to provide the foundation for admitting the test record and checklist. Instead, the *367State wanted to “test” the issue on appeal. But, as the majority opinion summarizes, this appeal is clearly prohibited by case law, statute and federal and state constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.
I would award the token amount of $500.00 for costs and attorney’s fees, no affidavit or other proof having been presented. See, e.g., United Bank of Bismarck v. Young, 401 N.W.2d 517 (N.D.1987), cert. den’d 484 U.S. 856, 108 S.Ct. 165, 98 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987).