907 N.W.2d 780
N.D.2018Background
- Nathan Rolfson was charged with DUI (N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01) after an Intoxilyzer chemical test showed BAC > .08.
- Defense requested discovery under N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 for documents the prosecution intended to use in its case-in-chief.
- Ten days before trial the State emailed defense counsel an exhibit list and a link to documents on the Attorney General’s website; it did not provide printed copies or specifically identify three foundation documents later used to support the Intoxilyzer result.
- At trial defense objected to admission of the Intoxilyzer result based on lack of foundation under Ell (install/inspection documentation required); the State sought to introduce three additional foundation documents from the AG website.
- The district court admitted the three foundation documents and the Intoxilyzer result, ruling the documents were publicly available and thus not required to be provided earlier; the court declined to exclude evidence as a discovery sanction and offered a continuance (defense declined).
- On appeal the Supreme Court held the State did violate Rule 16 by not providing specific identification or copies of the three documents, but affirmed the conviction because Rolfson failed to show significant prejudice from the late disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State violated Rule 16 by not disclosing three foundation documents before trial | No — documents were publicly available on AG website, so listing the website sufficed | Yes — Rule 16 required specific identification or copies of requested documents in prosecution’s possession or accessible | Court: State did violate Rule 16 by not providing copies or specific IDs, so disclosure was insufficient |
| Whether district court abused discretion by admitting the three documents despite late disclosure | No — even if late, no substantial prejudice; documents were publicly available and remedy of continuance was offered | Yes — late admission prejudiced defense’s ability to prepare; exclusion warranted as sanction | Court: No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show significant prejudice, so admission was proper |
| Whether foundational proof (per Ell) was satisfied by the three documents | The three documents provided required foundation for Intoxilyzer test result | Failure to provide them earlier impaired defense and justified exclusion | Court: Foundation requirement under Ell was met by exhibits; issue on appeal limited to discovery violation and prejudice |
| Whether remedy of exclusion was required for Rule 16 violation | Not required absent significant prejudice or systemic misconduct; continuance offered | Exclusion required to remedy violation and protect defendant’s rights | Court: Exclusion not required because defendant did not show significant prejudice and no pattern of institutional noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Ell v. Dir., Dep’t of Transp., 2016 ND 164, 883 N.W.2d 464 (installation/field-inspector documentation required to show strict compliance for Intoxilyzer foundation)
- City of Grand Forks v. Ramstad, 2003 ND 41, 658 N.W.2d 731 (Rule 16 requires production of requested documents in possession or accessible to prosecution; prejudice required to reverse for discovery violation)
- State v. Packineau, 2015 ND 180, 865 N.W.2d 414 (disclosure via state-owned website can satisfy Rule 16 if documents are specifically identified and disclosed)
- State v. Blunt, 2011 ND 127, 799 N.W.2d 363 (Rule 16 scope and prosecution duty to disclose; open-file considerations)
- State v. Addai, 2010 ND 29, 778 N.W.2d 555 (discovery violations reversible only when defendant’s substantial rights are denied; open-file policy relevant to prejudice)