912 N.W.2d 299
N.D.2018Background
- August 2014: Brandon Morel arrested and charged with DUI and refusal to submit to a chemical test; district court denied Morel’s pretrial constitutional challenge to the refusal statute.
- State dismissed the DUI charge and prosecuted only the refusal charge; a jury convicted Morel of refusing a chemical test in November 2014.
- Morel appealed; this Court initially affirmed in 2015 before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Birchfield v. North Dakota in 2016.
- Birchfield held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless blood draws incident to arrest and that motorists cannot be criminally punished for refusing a warrantless blood test.
- May 2017: Morel filed post-conviction relief (PCR) seeking vacation of his refusal conviction based on Birchfield; the district court denied relief as Birchfield was a new procedural rule not retroactive.
- This Court reversed, holding Birchfield announced a substantive rule that applies retroactively and remanded with instructions to vacate the criminal judgment and return any unlawfully exacted fees/costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Birchfield's prohibition on criminalizing refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test applies retroactively to Morel’s finalized conviction | Morel: Birchfield announced a new substantive rule narrowing the scope of punishable conduct, so it must be applied retroactively under Teague’s first exception | State: Birchfield announced a new federal rule of criminal procedure, which is not retroactive to final convictions | Held: Birchfield announced a substantive rule (it removes a category of punishable conduct); it is retroactive and Morel’s refusal conviction must be vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (held warrantless blood draws are not permitted incident to arrest and criminal penalties for refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test are unconstitutional)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (explains substantive rules that change the range of conduct a statute punishes are retroactive)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules for retroactivity under Teague)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (established modern test for retroactivity of new rules in collateral review)
- Beard v. Banks, 542 U.S. 406 (2004) (framework for determining when a rule is "new" for retroactivity analysis)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (defines substantive rules as those that narrow the scope of criminal statutes or place conduct beyond state power to punish)
- Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017) (state must refund fines/costs when conviction is invalidated)
- Burton v. Fabian, 612 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2010) (discusses when a decision announces a "new rule" not dictated by prior precedent)