State v. Tveito

2014 ND 189
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 28, 2014
Docket20140075
StatusPublished

This text of 2014 ND 189 (State v. Tveito) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Tveito, 2014 ND 189 (N.D. 2014).

Opinion

Filed 10/28/14 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2014 ND 189

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Leigh Allen Tveito, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20140075

Appeal from the District Court of Morton County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Donald L. Jorgensen, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Justin M. Balzer (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, 210 2nd Avenue NW, Mandan, ND 58554, for plaintiff and appellee.

Michael R. Hoffman (on brief), P.O. Box 1056, Bismarck, ND 58501-1056, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Tveito

[¶1] Leigh Tveito appealed from a criminal judgment entered upon a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol after the district court denied his motion to suppress the results of a blood-alcohol test.  Tveito argues the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence of his blood test as it was coerced and not a free and voluntary choice.  We previously considered and rejected, as a matter of law, the argument criminal sanctions under the implied consent law for refusal of consent to a blood-alcohol test equate to coercion.   State v. Smith , 2014 ND 152, ¶¶ 1, 16-22, 849 N.W.2d 599; State v. Boehm , 2014 ND 154, ¶¶ 17-22, 849 N.W.2d 239; State v. Brenny , 2014 ND 159, ¶ 1.  We conclude the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress as there was sufficient competent evidence to support the district court’s determination Tveito’s consent was freely and voluntarily given and the court’s decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶2] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Boehm
2014 ND 154 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Smith
2014 ND 152 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)
State v. Brenny
2014 ND 159 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2014 ND 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tveito-nd-2014.