State v. Teggatz, 2017 ND 171

On April 13, 2016, police pursued Shawn Teggatz after observing his vehicle speeding; speeds were reported up to 140 mph during the chase.
Officers activated emergency lights to initiate a stop; Teggatz slowed, then swerved and accelerated away, leading officers to deploy spike strips that blew out his front tires.
Teggatz’s car drove on the rims several miles before stopping; officers extracted and arrested him. He said the accelerator pedal split and became stuck, and that he had previously fled and gotten away.
Teggatz testified his vehicle had been at a mechanic for about a year and he picked it up two days before the incident; he sought to testify about what the mechanic told him regarding wiring/acceleration issues.
The State objected to the mechanic-related testimony as hearsay; the district court sustained the objection but admitted the mechanic’s receipt. A jury convicted Teggatz of reckless endangerment and fleeing/attempting to elude a peace officer.
On appeal, Teggatz argued (1) the district court erred by excluding his testimony about the mechanic’s out-of-court statements (present sense impression), and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of mechanic's out-of-court statements (hearsay)	State: statements are inadmissible hearsay not within an exception	Teggatz: mechanic's remarks are present sense impressions admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 803(1)	Court: exclusion was not an abuse of discretion—no evidence of sufficient contemporaneity to qualify as a present sense impression
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	State: testimony and physical evidence (speed, dangerous driving, spike strips, flight) provide substantial evidence	Teggatz: vehicle malfunction caused uncontrollable acceleration, negating criminal culpability	Court: verdicts supported by substantial evidence; convictions affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3)

State v. Jaster, 690 N.W.2d 213 (N.D. 2004) (district court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
State v. Jensen, 418 N.W.2d 776 (N.D. 1988) (present sense impression requires substantial contemporaneity)
Knudson v. Director, N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 530 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1995) (contemporaneity inquiry—sufficiently brief interval precludes reflective thought)
Makuc v. American Honda Motor Co., 835 F.2d 389 (1st Cir. 1987) (mechanic’s contemporaneous description admissible where made while examining defect)
United States v. Blakey, 607 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1979) (discussing temporal limits for present sense impressions)
Brown v. Tard, 552 F. Supp. 1341 (D.N.J. 1982) (addressing timing for hearsay exception applicability)