Hamilton v. Woll
2012 ND 238
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Tresenriter was convicted by jury of 22 counts of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and related offenses plus terrorizing, child endangerment, and simple assault.
- DNA evidence from a buccal swab was introduced; the test showed a match to DNA on a cigarette butt at a meth lab site.
- A pretrial motion to suppress the DNA results was denied; the district court stated admissibility would depend on trial foundation.
- Tresenriter failed to renew his foundational objection when the DNA evidence was offered at trial and declined to object further.
- The State introduced pharmacy restriction logs showing co-conspirators purchased large amounts of pseudoephedrine.
- The court affirmed the judgments, concluding issues were not properly preserved for appeal and no reversible error was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DNA test results were properly admitted. | Tresenriter failed to renew a foundation objection; no preserved error. | Foundation for the DNA test was insufficient; Zachmeier not qualified. | No obvious error; admission affirmed. |
| Whether the district court erred by not consolidating conspiracy counts. | Multiple conspiracies properly charged; no need to consolidate. | Conspiracy charges should have been consolidated into one. | No obvious error; no consolidation required. |
| Whether the DNA foundation issue was properly waived or preserved for appeal. | Waiver due to failure to object at trial. | Objection preserved under Rule 52(b) as obvious error. | Waived; no plain error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fargo v. Erickson, 1999 ND 145 (ND 1999) (necessity of timely objections to preserve evidentiary issues)
- State v. Lee, 2004 ND 176 (ND 2004) (requirement to object with specificity to preserve foundation challenges)
- May v. Sprynczynatyk, 2005 ND 76 (ND 2005) (need for specific foundation objections at trial)
- Thompson, 2010 ND 10 (ND 2010) (renewing objections at trial to preserve issues for review)
- Clark, 2012 ND 135 (ND 2012) (plain-error standard under Rule 52(b) for obvious errors)