State v. Long

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Kimberly Long’s criminal judgment following her conditional guilty plea to refusing to submit to a chemical test. The court held that N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) unambiguously requires an advisory concerning the consequences of refusing chemical testing, but does not require advising a driver of a right to refuse. The court declined to consider legislative history because the statutory language was clear.

Holdings

1. N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) unambiguously requires an individual to be advised of the consequences of refusing a chemical test, but does not require the individual to be advised of a right to refuse the test.
2. The phrase is unambiguous and does not require the advisory to identify or include any specific provisions of the state or federal constitutions.
3. Because N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is clear and unambiguous, the court need not resort to legislative history or other extrinsic aids.

Questions Presented

1. Whether N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is ambiguous because it requires an individual to be advised of the 'consequences' of refusing a chemical test without specifying those consequences.
2. Whether the phrase requiring an advisory 'consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Dakota' makes N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) ambiguous or requires the advisory to identify constitutional provisions.
3. Whether N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) requires drivers to be informed of a right to refuse chemical testing.

Disposition

affirmed