823 N.W.2d 767
N.D.2012Background
- Christianson arrested for DUI after blood draw at Williston hospital.
- Analytical report showed blood-alcohol above legal limit; State charged driving while intoxicated or BAC above limit.
- State notified Christianson under Rule 707(a) of intent to introduce certified analytical report; report certified by Grieger-Nimmo.
- Christianson objected under Rule 707(b) and identified four witnesses, including the Director Olson, to testify about the report.
- District court denied State’s motion to admit the report without Olson’s testimony, interpreting Rule 707 literally; ordered Olson to testify.
- Court addresses Confrontation Clause, Rule 707 interplay with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07, and whether the Director must testify; ultimately vacates district court order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must produce the Director at trial under Rule 707 when defendant objects. | Christianson argues Director must testify as identified. | State argues Director need not testify if no testimonial statements by Director. | State not required to produce Director where no testimonial statements shown. |
| Whether the Director’s testimony is required given the role in the blood analysis and statute. | Director identified as witness to be produced. | Director did not participate in analysis; no testimonial statements by Director. | Director not required to testify; analysis shows no Director-made testimonial statements. |
| Whether the Confrontation Clause requires testimony of the person who drew the blood. | Crawford/Melendez-Diaz require confrontation with those who prepare testimonial evidence. | Shortcuts under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07 interact with Rule 707 to limit who testifies. | Confrontation rights narrowed by statute; testimony of Director not required here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and confrontation rights)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis are testimonial unless analyst unavailable)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (forensic report testimonial when prepared for evidentiary purpose)
- State ex rel. Roseland v. Herauf, 2012 ND 151, 819 N.W.2d 546 (North Dakota 2012) (interprets Rule 707 with § 39-20-07; blood-draw statements testimonial)
- State v. Lutz, 2012 ND 156, 820 N.W.2d 111 (North Dakota 2012) (confirms limited production of preparer statements; chain of custody context)
- Herauf, 2012 ND 151, 819 N.W.2d 546 (North Dakota 2012) (blood-draw statement testimonial; Rule 707 requires production of draw witness when objected to)