Waslaski v. State
2013 ND 70
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Wosick was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol under N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01 after a traffic stop and blood draw.
- Officer Gavere detected alcohol, performed field sobriety tests, and arrested Wosick; a blood test was collected at the hospital.
- Pretrial, the district court discussed jury instructions; Wosick moved to suppress the blood test under N.D.R.Ev. 707 and claimed inadequate notice.
- At trial, the State called the officer, the nurse, and the forensic scientist; Wosick presented a defense alleging lack of intoxication.
- Wosick argued lack of notice to charge under subsection (a) of § 39-08-01 and challenged the blood test as a Rule 707(a) issue; he admitted receipt of the blood report.
- The district court admitted the blood test report; the jury convicted Wosick of driving under the influence or with .08% BAC; the district court judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wosick properly charged and informed of the applicable offense? | Wosick argued lack of notice under § 39-08-01(1)(a). | Wosick claimed improper notice and potential prejudice. | Notice adequate; charges encompassed both subsections (a) and (b). |
| Did the district court err by admitting the blood analysis report under Rule 707(a)? | State contends proper notice was required; report admissible with notice. | Wosick argues failure to provide written notice violated Rule 707(a). | Harmless error; no prejudice to substantial rights; admission upheld. |
| Was there preserved objection to the blood test foundation, and if not, was there obvious error? | Foundation laid by testimony; no further objection necessary for admissibility. | Challenge to foundation not preserved for review; possible obvious error. | Obvious error not established; admission not shown to be clearly improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schwab, 2003 ND 119 (ND 2003) (clarifies charging under subsections (a) and (b) may be pled alternatively)
- State v. Doppler, 2013 ND 54 (ND 2013) (review of harmless error and evidentiary admission standards)
- State v. Rustad, 2012 ND 242 (ND 2012) (Rule 707(a) confrontation requirements and witnesses)
- Tresenriter, 2012 ND 240 (ND 2012) (need for precise foundation objections to preserve rulings)
- State v. Treis, 1999 ND 136 (ND 1999) (notice and elements for charges encompassing multiple subsections)