State v. Bowen
Citations
- 985 N.W.2d 636
- 2023 ND 25
Syllabus
A district court may infer that an event did not occur on the basis of a witness's testimony that she had no recollection of the event occurring combined with testimony of habit or practice about what she would have done if it had occurred. The Confrontation Clause does not apply to non-testimonial hearsay. Reports concerning the installation and inspection of an Intoxilyzer used to perform chemical breath tests do not contain testimonial statements from the state toxicologist requiring him to be produced at trial.
Judges: Tufte, Jerod E.
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court· 2009-06-25· cited 2,882×
- Commonwealth v. ZeiningerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 2011-05-24· cited 40×
- State v. DuncanNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2011-05-11· cited 19×
- Lange v. North Dakota Department of TransportationNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2010-10-25· cited 15×
- State v. LutzNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2012-07-26· cited 14×
- City of West Fargo v. OlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2020-08-27· cited 3×
- City of West Fargo v. WilliamsNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 2019-06-27· cited 2×
- Cooney-Koss v. BarlowSupreme Court of Delaware· 2014-03-07· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.