Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Asbridgegreen2 sentences2010This other source was Form 104, as allowed by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5), which states, “The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director’s designee, and by an individual possessing a certifícate of qualification to administer the test issued by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director’s designee.” Section 39-20-07, N 2010This other source was Form 104, as allowed by N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5), which states, "The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the director of the state crime laboratory or the director's designee." Section 39-20-07, N | 2 | 2 |
State v. Schneidergreen2 sentences1985Subsection 5 of NDCC § 39-20-07 provides, in part: "The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist...." We said in State v. Schneider, 270 N.W.2d 787, 791 (N.D.1978), that "[f]air administration of the breathalyzer test requires, at the minimum, a showing that the test was `performed according to the methods and/or with devices approved by the state toxicologist....'" The foundational requirements need 1985Subsection 5 of NDCC § 39-20-07 provides, in part: “The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist....” We said in State v. Schneider, 270 N.W.2d 787, 791 (N.D.1978), that “[fjair administration of the breathalyzer test requires, at the minimum, R showing that the test was ‘performed according to the methods and/or with devices approved by the state toxicologist....’” The foundational requirements need | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jordheimgreen2 sentences2010Gietzen’s Form 104 established his blood draw’s “[flair administration, chain of custody, and compliance with the State Toxicologist’s methods.” Id. (quoting State v. Jordheim, 508 N.W.2d 878, 881 (N.D. 1993)). [¶ 16] Gietzen argues his right to confrontation was violated by the State’s use of Form 104 and specifically by the nurse’s statements contained on Form 104, because the nurse’s statements are testimony against him that he was not allowed to challenge through cross-examination. 2010Gietzen's Form 104 established his blood draw's "[f]air administration, chain of custody, and compliance with the State Toxicologist's methods." Id. (quoting Jordheim, 508 N.W.2d at 881 ). [¶ 12] Gietzen argues his right to confrontation was violated by the State's use of Form 104 and specifically by the nurse's statements contained on Form 104, because the nurse's statements are testimony against him that he was not allowed to challenge through cross-examination. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Schwalkgreen2 sentences1992State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317 (N.D.1988). “[T]he State Toxicologist has drafted Form 104 to be used when a blood sample is drawn for blood alcohol testing.” Id., at 322 . 1992State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317 (N.D.1988). “[T]he State Toxicologist has drafted Form 104 to be used when a blood sample is drawn for blood alcohol testing.” Id., at 322 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vetschgreen1 sentence2010State v. Vetsch, 368 N.W.2d 547, 550 (N.D.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Moser v. North Dakota State Highway Commissionergreen1 sentence1991The defendant asserts that because he had chewing tobacco in his mouth when he blew into the machine, the state toxicologist’s procedures were not followed and that the test results should be invalidated. 1 Under Section 39-20-07(5) N.D.C.C.: *818 “The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to admi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence1984State v. Anderson, 336 N.W.2d 634, 638 (N.D.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dilgergreen1 sentence1983In State v. Dilger, 322 N.W.2d 461, 463 (N.D.1982), we said, with respect to the requirements which Section 29-28-07(5) imposes on the State in an appeal from a suppression order, “... the prosecuting attorney should, in addition to the statement prescribed by § 29-28-07(5), provide this court with an explanation, not inconsistent with the record, stating the reasons why the trial court’s order has effectively destroyed any possibility of prosecuting the criminal charge to a conviction.” In satisfaction of this requirement, the State contends in its brief that without the results of the chemic | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jorgensen v. North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2007Id. at ¶ 4, 695 N.W.2d 212 . 2007Id. at ¶ 4, 695 N.W.2d 212 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Halvorson
green
2 sentences1995"The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the state toxicologist." Id. § 39-20-07(5). 1995“The results of the chemical analysis must be received in evidence when it is shown that the sample was properly obtained and the test was fairly administered, and if the test is shown to have been performed according to methods and with devices approved by the state toxicologist, and by an individual possessing a certificate of qualification to administer the test issued by the state toxicologist.” Id. § 39-20-07(5). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schwind v. Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences1990Schwind v. Department of Transportation, 462 N.W.2d 147 (N.D. 1990); see also State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317, 322 (N.D.1988). 1990Schwind v. Department of Transportation, 462 N.W.2d 147 (N.D.1990); see also State v. Schwalk, 430 N.W.2d 317, 322 (N.D.1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Guthmiller
green
2 sentences1985The variance here is similar to one of the variances discussed in State v. Guthmiller, 350 N.W.2d 600 (N.D.1984), in which we upheld the conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor because the State Toxicologist was present at the hearing to explain that the variance in administering the test would have no effect on the validity of the test results. 1985The variance here is similar to one of the variances discussed in State v. Guthmiller, 350 N.W.2d 600 (N.D.1984), in which we upheld the conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor because the State Toxicologist was present at the hearing to explain that the variance in administering the test would have no effect on the validity of the test results. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.