State v. Long
- State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
Kimberly Long, Defendant and Appellant
- Case Type
- CRIMINAL APPEAL : DUI/DUS
- Appeal From
Case No. 2019-CR-00980
South Central Judicial District, Morton County
James S. Hill
Parties' Statement of Issues
N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is ambiguous. Extrinsic aids should be considered to ascertain the legislative intent of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f). After review of extrinsic aids, the refusal charge must be dismissed, because the trooper did not comply with the legislative intentions of N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f).
Is N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) ambiguous, if so, does legislative history provide an aid to interpretation and, does that interpretation require advisory of a "right to refuse" testing?
Kimberly Long appeals from a criminal judgment after entering a conditional guilty plea to refusal to submit to a chemical test, a class B misdemeanor.
In September 2019, Long was arrested and charged for refusal to submit to a chemical test. Long filed a motion to dismiss and asked the district court to dismiss the charge because the officer did not comply with the requirements of the N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) advisory and the charge was inapplicable to Long’s case. Following a motion hearing, the district court denied Long’s motion. Long subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of refusal to submit to a chemical test. The court approved the conditional guilty plea and entered a criminal judgment.
On appeal, Long argues N.D.C.C. § 39-08-01(1)(f) is ambiguous, and extrinsic aids should be considered to ascertain the legislative intent of the statute. Long also argues the trooper did not comply with the legislative intent of the statute.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||02/21/2020||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 02/21/2020|
|2||02/21/2020||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 02/24/2020|
|3||02/24/2020||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|4||02/24/2020||Notice served on Danny L. Herbel and Chase Lingle|
|5||02/24/2020||Amended Notice of Appeal with Oral Argument requested|
|6||02/26/2020||NOT. OF FILING AMENDED NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|7||02/26/2020||Notice served on Danny L. Herbel and Chase Lingle|
|8||03/18/2020||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED MARCH 17, 2020 (ENTRY NOS.1-50)|
|9||04/14/2020||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED JANUARY 6, 2020|
|10||05/21/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|11||05/22/2020||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 06/09/2020|
|12||06/05/2020||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|13||06/08/2020||ACTION BY CLERK - Granted : 06/16/2020|
|15||06/15/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|17||06/17/2020||Rec'd copies of ATB & ATA from Central Duplicating|
|19||07/08/2020||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|20||07/09/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to AEB|
|21||07/10/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of AEB back from CSD|
|23||07/24/2020||Rec'd 5 copies of RYB from CSD|
|24||08/12/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|25||09/08/2020||APPEARANCES: Danny L. Herbel; Chase R. Lingle|
|26||09/08/2020||ARGUED: Danny L. Herbel; Chase R. Lingle|
|27||09/08/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|