Haag v. State
2012 ND 241
| N.D. | 2012Background
- State seeks supervisory writ to overturn district court pretrial order requiring production of the State Crime Laboratory Director at Christianson’s DUI trial.
- Analytical report of blood test showed blood-alcohol above legal limit; State notified under Rule 707 and sought to admit report with witness testimony to be produced.
- Defendant objected under N.D.R.Ev. 707(b), naming multiple witnesses including the Director; district court required the Director’s testimony.
- Court analyzed Rule 707’s text, its relationship to N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07, and Confrontation Clause jurisprudence from Crawford, Melendez-Diaz, and Bullcoming.
- Court came to view Herauf and Lutz as controlling regarding when the Director must testify, concluding the Director’s testimony is not automatically required.
- District court was ordered to vacate its order directing production of the Director at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 707 require production of the Director at trial? | Madden argues yes under 707(b) as named witness. | Christianson argues no; Director did not participate in analysis and produced no testimonial statements. | No; director not required to testify. |
| Is the intervention by the Director required by constitutional confrontation concerns? | State relies on Confrontation Clause to compel production for testimonial testimony. | Director did not make testimonial statements; production unnecessary. | Not required given record; no testimonial statements by Director. |
| Is supervisory jurisdiction appropriate to resolve this pretrial issue? | State lacks adequate appellate remedy if error persists. | Normal appellate review suffices. | Yes; supervisory writ appropriate. |
| Do Herauf and Lutz control whether the Director must be produced when the defendant objects under Rule 707(b)? | Director should be produced if identified as a required witness. | Production depends on whether the Director made testimonial statements. | Director not required absent testimonial statements; district order vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (defined core 'testimonial' statements triggering confrontation rights)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial and require confrontation)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2011) (certified test reports are testimonial; live testimony required)
- State v. Herauf, 2012 ND 151 (N.D. 2012) (interprets Rule 707 with § 39-20-07; blood-drawer testimony required when objected to)
- State v. Lutz, 2012 ND 156 (N.D. 2012) (clarifies when 707 testimony is required for volatile solution; chain-of-custody related testimonies)