State v. Hawkins

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed an order suppressing blood test results in a driving-under-the-influence prosecution. The Court held that sufficient competent evidence supported the district court’s finding that Hawkins’s consent was not voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, while declining to address alleged inaccuracies in the implied consent advisory.

Holdings

1. The State could appeal because it filed the required notice of appeal and prosecuting-attorney statement asserting that the appeal was not taken for delay and that the suppressed evidence was substantial proof of a material fact.
2. The district court's finding that Hawkins did not voluntarily consent to the blood test was supported by sufficient competent evidence and was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
3. The Court declined to address any potential inaccuracy in the officer's delivery of the implied-consent advisory because the district court's voluntariness ruling independently disposed of the suppression issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State could appeal the order suppressing the blood-test evidence under N.D.C.C. § 29-28-07(5).
2. Whether sufficient competent evidence supported the district court's finding that Hawkins did not voluntarily consent to the warrantless blood test.
3. Whether the Supreme Court should address any alleged defect in the implied-consent advisory under N.D.C.C. § 39-20-01(3).

Disposition

affirmed