N.D. Cent. Code » Title 31 · Chapter 31-01
North Dakota Century Code

N.D. Cent. Code § 31-01-06 (2026)

Public officers cannot testify regarding confidential communications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ND-LEGndlegis.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases:

1. Superseded by N.D.R.Ev. 501, 502.

2. Superseded by N.D.R.Ev. 501, 505.

3. Superseded by N.D.R.Ev. 501, 503.

4. A public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to the public officer in official confidence when the public interests would suffer by the disclosure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1963–1994 · leading case: Lembke v. Unke, 171 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lembke v. Unke, 171 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1969). · cites it 22× “Subsection 1 of § 31-01-06 reads: An attorney, without the consent of his client, cannot be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, nor as to his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; North Dakota Century Code.”
State v. Schroeder, 524 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1994). · cites it 9× “§ 31-01-06(3), arguably was broader in one other respect, because it also applied to “any information acquired in attending the patient.”
Sagmiller v. Carlsen, 219 N.W.2d 885 (N.D. 1974). · cites it 12× “*894 The relevant North Dakota statute on the doctor-patient privilege is Section 31-01-06, Subsection 3, N.D.C.C.: "3.”
State v. Henderson, 156 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1968). · cites it 16× “" and Section 31-01-06, N.D.C.C., reads: "A person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases: "1.”
State v. Erickson, 241 N.W.2d 854 (N.D. 1976). · cites it 2× “The defendant’s argument in this respect is without merit.”
State v. Mertens, 268 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 1978). · cites it 2× “The nondisclosure concept is also supported by § 31-01-06(4), NDCC, which, in substance, provides that: "A person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases: .”
Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, ND, 196 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1972). · cites it 4× “It is now codified as Section 31-01-06, N.D.C.C., which section is set forth above.”
Holloway v. Blue Cross of North Dakota, 294 N.W.2d 902 (N.D. 1980). · cites it 2× “Rule 503, North Dakota Rules of Evidence, which superseded § 31-01-06(3), North Dakota. Century Code.”
State v. Denny, 350 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1984). · cites it 2× “Denny’s second contention was that the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant.”
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Bd. of Equalization, 244 N.W.2d 708 (N.D. 1976). “The disclosure of confidential communications, such as are protected by § 31-01-06, NDCC, under certain circumstances may be so damaging and so irreparable as to warrant the conclusion that the merits of the action are involved when determining ap-pealability.”
State v. Unterseher, 255 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 1977). “Unterseher contends that because testimony by the physicians who attended Sharon Olson would be subject to Sharon Olson’s physician-patient privilege, statutorily set out in § 31-01-06, N.D.C.C., such witnesses were not equally available to him.”
In Re Graf's Est., 119 N.W.2d 478 (N.D. 1963). · cites it 2× “It involves primarily the construction of Subsection 1 of Section 31-01-06, North Dakota Century Code, which provides that communications between a client and his attorney are privileged.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
N.D. Cent. Code § 31-01-06(1): 2 cases
State v. Henderson, 156 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1968). “" and Section 31-01-06, N.D.C.C., reads: "A person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases: "1.”
Bolyea v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilton, ND, 196 N.W.2d 149 (N.D. 1972). “It is now codified as Section 31-01-06, N.D.C.C., which section is set forth above.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 31-01-06(3): 4 cases
Lembke v. Unke, 171 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1969). “Subsection 1 of § 31-01-06 reads: An attorney, without the consent of his client, cannot be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, nor as to his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; North Dakota Century Code.”
State v. Schroeder, 524 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1994). “§ 31-01-06(3), arguably was broader in one other respect, because it also applied to “any information acquired in attending the patient.”
State v. Erickson, 241 N.W.2d 854 (N.D. 1976). “The defendant’s argument in this respect is without merit.”
Holloway v. Blue Cross of North Dakota, 294 N.W.2d 902 (N.D. 1980). “Rule 503, North Dakota Rules of Evidence, which superseded § 31-01-06(3), North Dakota. Century Code.”
N.D. Cent. Code § 31-01-06(4): 2 cases
State v. Mertens, 268 N.W.2d 446 (N.D. 1978). “The nondisclosure concept is also supported by § 31-01-06(4), NDCC, which, in substance, provides that: "A person cannot be examined as a witness in the following cases: .”
State v. Denny, 350 N.W.2d 25 (N.D. 1984). “Denny’s second contention was that the trial court erred in denying his motion to compel disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.