South Dakota Supreme Court
State of North Dakota, and v. Robert Paul Gackle, and
December 1, 20152015 N.D. LEXIS 288
Summary
The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed Gackle's DUI conviction, holding that the implied‑consent advisory did not coerce his consent to a blood draw and that the State satisfied the evidentiary foundation for the blood‑test results through live testimony, so the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the results.
Holding
- Whether the implied‑consent advisory coerced Gackle's consent to the blood draw. The advisory did not coerce consent; Gackle's consent was voluntary.
- Whether the State met the foundation requirements of N.D.C.C. § 39-20-07(5) for admissibility of the blood‑test results. The State satisfied the foundation through live testimony; the statutory shortcut is not exclusive, so the admission was proper.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the blood‑test results. The district court did not abuse its discretion; admission is affirmed.
Docket No. 20150090