State v. Tresenriter
823 N.W.2d 774
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Tresenriter was convicted by jury on 22 conspiracy counts to manufacture methamphetamine and multiple related offenses, stemming from activities 2006–2009.
- DNA results from a buccal swab linked Tresenriter’s DNA to DNA on a cigarette butt found at a meth lab.
- Law enforcement sought the DNA sample after Tresenriter initially refused to provide one; a warrant authorized the buccal swab.
- Pretrial motion to suppress the DNA results was denied; admission at trial depended on foundation.
- Pharmacy logs showed co-conspirators purchased large amounts of pseudoephedrine and related items.
- Tresenriter did not timely object to DNA evidence at trial and did not move to consolidate conspiracy counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DNA foundation admissibility | Tresenriter contends inadequate foundation for agent’s qualification. | State asserts proper foundation established by training and lab procedures. | No reversible error; admission upheld; no plain error. |
| Preservation of foundation error | Tresenriter preserved issue by pretrial challenge. | State argues failure to renew objection at trial waives the issue. | Waiver for failure to renew; Rule 52(b) limited exception not satisfied. |
| Consolidation of conspiracy counts | Tresenriter requests consolidation into a single count. | State argues no legal requirement to consolidate under circumstances. | No obvious error; district court did not err in not consolidating. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fargo v. Erickson, 598 N.W.2d 787 (ND 1999) (objection timing required; lack of timely objection waives appealable issues)
- May v. Sprynczynatyk, 695 N.W.2d 196 (ND 2005) (specific, not general, objections to foundation required)
- Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (ND 2010) (must renew objections at trial to preserve foundation challenges)
- State v. Lee, 687 N.W.2d 237 (ND 2004) (precise foundation objections needed; lack of specific inquiry waives)
- State v. Buchholz, 678 N.W.2d 144 (ND 2004) (preservation and foundation principles applied)
- State v. Anderson, 657 N.W.2d 245 (ND 2003) (foundation errors and preservation discussed)
- Clark, 818 N.W.2d 739 (ND 2012) (obvious error standard under Rule 52(b))
- Vondal, 803 N.W.2d 578 (ND 2011) (limits on applying plain error exception)
- Desjarlais, 744 N.W.2d 529 (ND 2008) (when no applicable rule is clearly established, no obvious error)
- Blurton, 770 N.W.2d 231 (ND 2009) (plain error requires substantial rights impact)