Rogers v. State, 2017 ND 271

Roger s pled guilty to murdering his wife and disturbing a dead body, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress his confession.
On direct appeal this Court held Rogers was not in custody for Miranda purposes and his confession was voluntary; district court found he was not under the influence and Trazodone did not impair cognition.
Rogers sought post-conviction relief, arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge voluntariness by presenting evidence about his intoxication and interaction of alcohol with Trazodone.
At the post-conviction hearing Rogers testified his BAC earlier was .375 and estimated it would be about .16 at interrogation; he presented no expert toxicology testimony.
The suppression record included medical records (showing high BAC and Trazodone administration), a videotaped confession, and medical staff observations; trial counsel had argued mental state issues at suppression.
The district court denied relief and subsequent motions to amend findings, for a new trial, and to correct the record; Rogers appealed and this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert evidence about alcohol/Trazodone effects on voluntariness	Rogers: counsel was deficient for not showing his intoxication and Trazodone use rendered confession involuntary; an expert could have estimated BAC and interaction effects	State: suppression record, videotape, medical observations, counsel’s arguments and records already addressed mental state; no expert was necessary	Court held counsel was not deficient and Rogers failed to show reasonable probability he would have refused a plea and gone to trial
Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to amend findings	Rogers: findings misstated that suppression issues were addressed and need amendment	State: motion merely reargued previously rejected claims	Court held no abuse of discretion; motion was repetitive
Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion for new trial	Rogers: same grounds previously rejected support new trial	State: no new meritorious basis	Court held no abuse of discretion
Whether denial of motion to correct the record was erroneous	Rogers: proffered internet materials on Trazodone interactions and alcohol metabolism should be included	State: documents were not erroneously omitted; district court treated submission as offer of proof	Court noted Rogers did not appeal that order and in any event district court did not abuse discretion

State v. Rogers, 848 N.W.2d 257 (N.D. 2014) (affirming confession was voluntary and defendant was not in custody)
Booth v. State, 893 N.W.2d 186 (N.D. 2017) (benchmarks for ineffective-assistance claims and prejudice in plea context)
Lund v. Hjelle, 224 N.W.2d 552 (N.D. 1974) (experts can extrapolate blood-alcohol estimates)
Werven v. Werven, 877 N.W.2d 9 (N.D. 2016) (standard for amending findings)
Eagleman v. State, 877 N.W.2d 1 (N.D. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion framework)
State v. Lemons, 675 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 2004) (motion for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Waldie v. Waldie, 748 N.W.2d 683 (N.D. 2008) (district court discretion in correcting the record)