SBAND Seminar Materials DUI Case Law Update Materials | Page 6

Procedure: The district denied Wosick’s objections and allowed the results of the
blood test. The ND Supreme Court AFFIRMED.
Holding:
Failure to object limits the Court's inquiry on appeal to determine whether
the alleged error constitutes obvious error affecting the defendant's substantial rights.
Additionally, Wosick was charged with NDCC § 39-08-01 which encompasses both
subsections and it was clear Wosick anticipated his BAC would be an issue at trial.
The purpose of N.D.R.Ev. 707(a) is to ensure a defendant has an opportunity to object
and confront witnesses. Wosick confronted the lab analyst and did not object to the
absence of any other witness. Even assuming Rule 707 was violated, Wosick was not
prejudiced.
3) State, ex rel. Madden v. Rustad, 2012 ND 242
Prosecutor:
Defense:

Nathan Madden
Michael Hoffman
Paul Myerchin – Amicus ND Assoc of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Facts:
Christianson was arrested for DUI and submitted to a blood draw which
was above the legal limit. Christianson received the State’s 707 notice and objected to the
report and identified four additional witnesses including the director of the State lab.
Procedure: In a pretrial order the district court ordered the State to produce the
identified witnesses including the director of the State lab. The State petitioned for a
supervisory writ and the ND Supreme Court VACATED the district court’s order.
Holding:
The ND Supreme Court determined their supervisory jurisdiction was
appropriate because the State lacked another adequate remedy. Under the Confrontation
Clause, an accused is entitled to confront witnesses who bear testimony. Testimonial
statements are declarations made under circumstances that would lead an objective,
reasonable witness to believe they would be later used at trial.
4) State v. Lutz, 2012 ND 156, 820 N.W.2d 111
Prosecutor:
Defense:

Justin Schwarz
Chad McCabe

Facts:
Lutz was charged with driving under the influence and submitted to a
blood draw, which was conducted by a nurse. Lutz received the State’s 707 notice an
objected and demanded the State produce the officer, the nurse and two lab employees
one of which prepared the volatiles solution.
Procedure: Lutz conditionally plead guilty after the district court denied his motion in
limine demanding the State produce the requested witnesses. The ND Supreme Court
REVERSED AND REMANDED.

6