City of Grand Forks v. Scialdone

Summary

The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed Candace Scialdone’s criminal judgment for actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence. The court held that proof an Intoxilyzer 5000 was checked after being moved was not a foundational requirement for admitting the test results. It also held that the admission of documents faxed during trial and related rebuttal testimony did not violate discovery rules, particularly because Scialdone did not request a continuance or show prejudice.

Holdings

1. Evidence that an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine was checked after being moved was not a foundational requirement for showing that the test was administered according to the State Toxicologist's approved method or for admitting the test result.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the faxed documents or permitting the field inspector to testify because the evidence was offered as rebuttal evidence, Scialdone did not request a continuance, and she did not show an inability to meet the evidence.
3. The City did not violate N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 in a manner requiring reversal because Scialdone did not request a continuance and did not show prejudice from the timing of the disclosure.

Questions Presented

1. Whether proof that an Intoxilyzer 5000 machine was checked or recalibrated after being moved was a foundational requirement for admission of the Intoxilyzer test results.
2. Whether the trial court violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 or abused its discretion by admitting documents faxed during trial and permitting a field inspector to testify as rebuttal evidence.
3. Whether the City violated N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 by providing foundational documentation on the day before trial.

Disposition

affirmed