A police officer at trial twice referred to defendant as the \u201ctarget of a search warrant.\u201d The first was on direct and ordered struck and the jury directed to disregard. It happened again during cross of the same witness. Same objection and same result. It was not an abuse of discretion to handle it that way and then to deny a mistrial. United States v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27360 (7th Cir. Sep. 25, 2018).<\/p>\n
\u201c[\u00b616] Because Birchfield did not abrogate the requirements of N.D.C.C. \u00a7 39-20-01(3), Schoon, 2018 ND 210, \u00b6\u00b6 18-2 4, our decision in O’Connor requires the driver be informed of the entire statutory warning. We defer to the district court’s finding that Deputy Lloyd did not provide the entire warning, and conclude that the blood test is inadmissible as a result. The motion to suppress the blood test result should have been granted.\u201d State v. Bohe<\/a>, 2018 ND 216, 2018 N.D. LEXIS 225 (Sep. 25, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A police officer at trial twice referred to defendant as the \u201ctarget of a search warrant.\u201d The first was on direct and ordered struck and the jury directed to disregard. It happened again during cross of the same witness. Same … Continue reading