911 N.W.2d 905
N.D.2018Background
- Early morning traffic stop on Feb 16, 2017 after officer observed Taylor allegedly fail to stop at a stop sign; officer requested an onsite preliminary breath test (PBT), Taylor refused, was arrested, and then refused an Intoxilyzer chemical test at the law enforcement center.
- Taylor, self-represented, asserted a patrol-car video would show he stopped at the sign and thus the initial stop lacked justification; he claims discovery for the recording produced a response that any recording was unrecoverable or the camera was not operational.
- State charged Taylor under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(e)(2) (refusal to submit to a chemical test at the direction of an officer after being arrested).
- Before and during trial Taylor requested a jury instruction under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(1) (statutory standards for requesting an onsite screening test) and moved to dismiss for lack of evidence and for discovery violations; the district court denied the requested instruction and denied dismissal.
- At trial the arresting officer testified about the stop and refusals; the jury convicted Taylor of refusing to submit to a chemical test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by denying Taylor's requested jury instruction under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-14(1) | The State argued the charged offense was refusal of a chemical test under § 39-08-01(1)(e)(2), which does not incorporate § 39-20-14(1) requirements; the jury should be instructed on the charged elements. | Taylor argued the officer lacked statutory authority to request any breath testing because there was no moving violation (he stopped at the sign), so the jury should be instructed on § 39-20-14(1). | Denied: § 39-20-14(1) requirements are a legal matter for pretrial resolution and are not essential elements of the § 39-08-01(1)(e)(2) offense; failure to raise pretrial waives the issue. |
| Whether the validity of the traffic stop (and thus evidence) depends on whether Taylor was charged for refusing the onsite PBT | State contended whether the officer arrested for PBT refusal or for suspected DUI is irrelevant if the elements of the charged offense are proven. | Taylor contended he was arrested for on-site refusal and that absence of PBT authority invalidates stop and subsequent testing requests. | Denied: Validity of the stop turns on whether officer had articulable and reasonable suspicion (objective test), not on which specific refusal charge was or was not filed. |
| Whether the prosecutor violated Brady by failing to produce patrol-car audio/video that would have shown Taylor stopped at the sign | State said the video/camera was not operational and the record does not establish existence of discoverable recording. | Taylor argued nondisclosure (or loss) of the recording deprived him of exculpatory Brady material. | Denied (plain-error not shown): Record does not establish the State possessed or suppressed such material, so Brady not established. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to deny Taylor's motion to dismiss/acquittal | State relied on officer testimony that Taylor drove on public way and refused Intoxilyzer test. | Taylor argued lack of evidence (no video, contested stop) undermined sufficiency. | Denied: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find Taylor drove on a road and refused the chemical test. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webster, 891 N.W.2d 769 (N.D. 2017) (requirements to request an onsite breath screening are legal issues to be resolved pretrial and are not essential elements of refusal offenses)
- State v. Smith, 452 N.W.2d 86 (N.D. 1990) (investigative stops require articulable and reasonable suspicion; validity of stop is judged objectively irrespective of ultimate conviction)
- State v. Muhle, 737 N.W.2d 647 (N.D. 2007) (elements required to establish a Brady violation)
- State v. Charette, 687 N.W.2d 484 (N.D. 2004) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)