905 N.W.2d 909
N.D.2018Background
- Trooper Langer stopped Laura Rende for speeding; he observed failed field sobriety tests and administered a preliminary breath test (PBT) that indicated 0.149% and then arrested her for DWI.
- After arrest, Rende resisted a requested blood test; during a recorded exchange she stated, “1.4, I am really fucking drunk,” implying a PBT result.
- The State offered the traffic-stop video at trial and the parties agreed to edit out the PBT administration, but the portion including Rende’s statement about the PBT was played to the jury.
- The prosecutor also elicited testimony from the trooper implying Rende had taken and failed a PBT and then arrested her.
- The jury later asked during deliberations, “What was the preliminary breath test result?” The district court denied Rende’s mistrial motion, calling the admission harmless because a later blood test showed 0.156% BAC.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the PBT disclosure violated N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(3), was not harmless, and required a mistrial/new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of preliminary breath test result | State treated PBT evidence as harmless and probative of intoxication; later blood test corroborates | Rende argued N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(3) bars PBT results from evidence except to challenge probable cause | PBT result (and implication of failure) is inadmissible; statute forbids use except on probable-cause challenge |
| Effect of inadvertent disclosure of PBT result on trial fairness | Admission was inadvertent and harmless given blood test showing 0.156% BAC | Disclosure (video plus trooper implication) was prejudicial and not harmless; jury question shows impact | Error not harmless; prejudicial effect required reversal and new trial |
| Whether a defendant’s own statement of a PBT result can be admitted | State argued Rende’s statement does not create an exception and relied on corroborating blood test | Rende contended statute bars the result regardless who states it; admission violated statute | No exception: statute bars result regardless who states or offers it; Ruach-type analogs support exclusion |
| Remedy for admission of PBT evidence | State urged harmless-error review and affirmed conviction | Rende moved for mistrial; argued admission was fundamental and required mistrial | Denial of mistrial was abuse of discretion; Supreme Court reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fargo v. Erickson, 598 N.W.2d 787 (N.D. 1999) (PBT evidence and even consent to PBT generally irrelevant and inadmissible under statute)
- State v. Schimmel, 409 N.W.2d 335 (N.D. 1987) (discusses harmless-error analysis where screening-test evidence was admitted)
- State v. Lang, 865 N.W.2d 401 (N.D. 2015) (standard of review for mistrial motions and abuse of discretion)
- State v. Steen, 860 N.W.2d 470 (N.D. 2015) (obvious-error standard requires plain error affecting substantial rights)
- State v. Olander, 575 N.W.2d 658 (N.D. 1998) (reviewing probable effect of error in context of entire record)