Court Opinion

ID: 9883195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:38:23.184533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:21.989709
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 15] The majority avoids, for the moment, the encounter of N.D.C.C.1 § 39-*91520-07 with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) and the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made applicable to the States under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
[¶ 16] I am skeptical of the harmless-error analysis involving the admission of evidence which should not be admitted or the exclusion of evidence which should be admitted because whether certain evidence had or would have any influence with the jury is conjectural, see State v.Entze, 272 N.W.2d 292, 298 (N.D.1978) (VandeWalle, J., concurring and dissenting). However, in this instance I am convinced that the question from the jury during deliberations, the failure of the jury to convict on the per se offense of driving under the influence of alcohol while convicting on the general charge of driving under the influence of alcohol, the judge’s specific questions to the jury when it returned its verdict and the overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction on the general charge leads us to this result. Although I cannot say the admission of the blood test was disregarded by the jury it obviously was not the deciding factor in the jury’s verdict.
[¶ 17] I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion.
[¶ 18] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., and MARY MUEHLEN MARING, J., concur.