State v. Zink
791 N.W.2d 161
| N.D. | 2010Background
- Zink appealed his DUI conviction after a conditional guilty plea, challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss or suppress evidence from a traffic stop.
- A Burleigh County deputy stopped Zink, conducted field sobriety tests, and arrested him for DUI; Zink stipulated the deputy had a lawful basis for the stop.
- Zink argued the deputy gave false proximity testimony at a DOT suspension hearing about how close he was to Zink’s car, and that the deputy’s pursuit involved excessive speed.
- At suppression, the district court accepted some of the deputy’s inconsistent statements but did not suppress the testimony or dismiss the charge.
- Zink filed a motion to reconsider arguing perjury and ongoing credibility issues; the district court again denied relief.
- On review, the court affirms, limiting its evaluation to the credibility and competency of the deputy’s testimony rather than the reasonableness of the stop or pursuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the deputy’s credibility sufficient to support denial of suppression? | Zink contends the deputy lied about proximity, undermining credibility. | State asserts the proximity testimony, though inconsistent, is credible and supports the stop. | Yes; there is sufficient competent evidence supporting the denial. |
| Does the alleged perjury at the DOT hearing affect suppression ruling? | Zink argues the deputy committed perjury by misreporting proximity. | Perjury is a criminal charge not pursued here; the issue is credibility, not per se perjury. | Perjury charge not before the court; credibility assessment remains governing. |
| Did the district court properly limit review to credibility, not the reasonableness of the stop or pursuit? | Zink contends the stop/pursuit reasonableness should be reviewable. | Review is limited to credibility under Mohl; stop reasonableness is not for consideration here. | Yes; review properly confined to credibility/competence of deputy’s testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mohl, 2010 ND 120 (2010 ND 120) (defines suppression-review standard and deference to district court findings)
- State v. Wolfer, 2010 ND 63 (2010 ND 63) (reinforces standard of review for suppression rulings)
- City of Bismarck v. Bullinger, 2010 ND 15 (2010 ND 15) (affirms deferential approach to district court findings)
- State v. Johnson, 2009 ND 167 (2009 ND 167) (confirms deference in credibility determinations on appeal)
- State v. Gill, 2008 ND 152 (2008 ND 152) (narrows appellate review to issues raised below)
- State v. Kieper, 2008 ND 65 (2008 ND 65) (limits scope of suppression review to record evidence)