Blurton v. State
2010 ND 223
N.D.2010Background
- Robert Zink was convicted by a conditional plea to DUI in Burleigh County District Court.
- Zink challenged the stop as lacking reasonable suspicion and sought suppression of the deputy’s testimony.
- The district court denied dismissal and suppression after a suppression hearing.
- Zink argued the deputy’s DOT hearing testimony was perjurious and the pursuit was unlawful.
- On appeal, the Court limited review to the deputy’s credibility and competency rather than the stop’s reasonableness.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding there was sufficient competent evidence to deny the motion and that perjury was not properly charged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop based on reasonable suspicion? | Zink | Zink | Not reviewed; appeal limited to deputy’s credibility, but affirmed. |
| Did the deputy commit perjury at the DOT hearing? | Zink | Zink | Perjury not charged; credibility of deputy addressed, not perjury determination. |
| Was the deputy’s testimony credible and competent to support the denial of suppression? | Zink | Zink | Yes; sufficient competent evidence supported denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mohl, 2010 ND 120 (2010) (review of suppression affidavits and standard of review: defer to district court on findings of fact)
- State v. Wolfer, 2010 ND 63 (2010) (standard for reviewing suppression and credibility determinations)
- City of Bismarck v. Bullinger, 2010 ND 15 (2010) (deferral to district court’s factual findings; credibility matters)
- State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 167 (2009) (affirmance based on credibility findings in suppression context)
- State v. Gill, 2008 ND 152 (2008) (limits on issues on appeal; standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65 (2008) (precedent on limited scope of suppression challenges)