State v. Keller
2013 ND 122
| N.D. | 2013Background
- In June 2012 Julian Keller was charged with driving under the influence; at trial the State introduced Keller’s blood-alcohol analysis and parts of Form 104.
- Exhibit 1 contained a forensic scientist’s certification and the top portion of Form 104 (checklist); the “specimen submitted by” line (where the arresting officer’s name is to appear) was blank.
- The bottom portion of Form 104 (the State Toxicologist–approved method) was not admitted into evidence; the forensic scientist who ran the test did testify and was cross-examined.
- The arresting deputy testified he failed to fill in the “specimen submitted by” field, described in detail the steps he observed and took when the nurse drew Keller’s blood, and explained the chain of custody for the sealed kit.
- Keller objected that the incomplete/missing Form 104 and lack of expert testimony regarding collection methods rendered the test unfairly administered; the district court admitted the blood test and the jury convicted Keller.
- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed, holding the deviations did not undermine scientific reliability and the documentary and testimonial record established fair administration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of Form 104 with the "specimen submitted by" line blank rendered the blood test inadmissible | The State: officer’s clerical omission did not affect scientific accuracy; officer’s testimony established steps taken | Keller: omission and lack of expert testimony meant fair administration not shown | Court: admission proper — officer’s detailed testimony showed omission was clerical and did not affect reliability |
| Whether failure to introduce the bottom (approved-method) portion of Form 104 required exclusion of the analytical report | The State: certified lab report, forensic scientist testimony, and other certified documents plus officer testimony supplied adequate foundation | Keller: without the bottom of Form 104 and expert testimony about collection methods, the State failed to prove fair administration | Court: admission proper — combined documentary certifications and participants’ testimony established scrupulous compliance and fair administration |
Key Cases Cited
- Kiecker v. N.D. Dep’t of Transportation, 691 N.W.2d 266 (N.D. 2005) (identifies foundational elements for admitting analytical reports under statutory scheme)
- Barros v. N.D. Dep’t of Transportation, 751 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2008) (Form 104 directions/checklist ensure proper collection; scrupulous vs. hypertechnical compliance)
- Jordheim v. State, 508 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1993) (if documentary/testimonial evidence fails to show scrupulous compliance, State must use expert testimony to establish fair administration)
- Schwalk v. State, 430 N.W.2d 317 (N.D. 1988) (expert testimony required when deviations affect scientific accuracy/reliability)
- Schlosser v. N.D. Dep’t of Transportation, 775 N.W.2d 695 (N.D. 2009) (officer testimony can cure failure to introduce complete Form 104 by establishing scrupulous compliance)