Geffre v. N.D. Dep't of Health, 2011 ND 45

Sauer was charged with driving under the influence and a restricted-license violation after a December 13, 2009 traffic stop in Grand Forks County.
An officer detected alcohol odor and slight slurring; Sauer was arrested and blood was drawn at Altru Hospital for lab analysis.
Sauer served a detailed discovery request seeking all testing notes and related documents; the State produced its file and some additional items after production.
During trial, the forensic analyst testified and Sauer sought access to the analyst’s case file, claiming non-disclosure; the State admitted the file was not previously provided.
The court granted a brief continuance, then later ordered the State to furnish a copy of the case file; Sauer did not pick up the copy.
Sauer moved to admit the case file as evidence; he advised the court he did not want the file admitted, only recorded for appeal; the jury found Sauer guilty on both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery violation denial of continuance was proper	State asserts no substantial prejudice; open-file policy insufficient; remedy adequate.	Sauer contends failure to disclose notes prejudiced defense and merited a continuance.	No abuse; Sauer not shown substantial prejudice; continuance denied.
Whether admission of testing notes and blood analysis documents was proper	State argues materials were produced; testing notes not central to exclusion.	Sauer argues non-disclosure and improper admission of the analyst’s file and report.	Court did not abuse discretion; testimony and report admissible.

State v. Addai, 2010 ND 29 (N.D. 2010) (discovery duties under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16; open-file policy not a substitute for disclosure)
City of Grand Forks v. Ramstad, 2003 ND 41 (N.D. 2003) (open-file policy does not excuse discovery obligations; prejudice required for relief)
State v. Procive, 2009 ND 151 (N.D. 2009) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary matters)