State v. Lutz, 820 N.W.2d 111

Lutz was charged with driving under the influence in September 2011 and gave a blood draw by a nurse.
The State planned to introduce an analytical report under N.D.R.Ev. 707 and notified Lutz, who objected and sought the nurse, the blood-draw witness, lab analysts, volatiles preparer, and other custodians.
The district court denied the in limine motion; Lutz pled guilty conditionally, reserving appeal on the ruling.
The court reviews a motion in limine for abuse of discretion and de novo review applies to constitutional confrontational claims.
The court analyzes Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming, interprets N.D.R.Ev. 707 with N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07, and overrules prior ND cases inconsistent with the holding; it concludes the State must produce the nurse who drew Lutz’s blood, but not necessarily the volatiles preparer or custodians, though subpoenas remain available.
The result is a reversal and remand to require production of the blood-draw nurse under Rule 707 and 39-20-07.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 707 and Confrontation Clause require production of the blood-draw nurse	Lutz argues the nurse must be produced	State contends 707 allows notice-and-demand and trial testimony from the nurse is not mandatory	Yes; nurse must be produced
Whether Hentges (volatiles preparer) must be produced	Lutz seeks Hentges at trial to challenge testing	No statutory requirement to force her appearance	Not required by 707; subpoena may be used if needed
Whether mail carriers or evidence custodians must be produced	Lutz argues these custodians are required under 707	Not required; chain-of-custody concerns go to weight	Not required; subpoena available for cross-examination
Whether 39-20-07(10) signed statement is testimonial and triggers confrontation rights	Lutz contends the signed statement is testimonial evidence	State relies on statute; acknowledges the testimonial nature of the signed statement	Yes; the signed statement is testimonial and the signer is a witness subject to confrontation

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (testimony of certificates of analysis is testimonial; confrontation applies)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (certified report testosterone; confrontation requires the analyst who prepared the report)
State ex rel. Roseland v. Herauf, 2012 ND 151 (ND 2012) (interprets 707 with confrontation and requires production of the blood-draw witness)
State v. Jordheim, 508 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 1993) (pre-Melendez-Diaz; analysis of 39-20-07 foundation)
State v. Schwab, 2008 ND 94 (ND 2008) (analytical report admission foundations under 39-20-07)
Schlosser v. N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2009 ND 173 (ND 2009) (foundation for admissibility of analytical reports)
Gietzen v. State, 2010 ND 82 (ND 2010) (clarifies 39-20-07(5) foundation)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes confrontation right and testimonial nature of out-of-court statements)
Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2232 (U.S. 2012) (plurality on testimonial nature of certificates; references Melendez-Diaz)