City of Bismarck v. King
North Dakota Supreme Court
924 N.W.2d 137 (2019)
Facts
Paul King (defendant) was pulled over by Bismarck police and taken into custody for driving under the influence. King was asked to submit to a breath test to confirm his level of inebriation, and he refused. The City of Bismarck (plaintiff) had a city ordinance making it illegal to refuse chemical testing. King was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence or for refusing a chemical test. King underwent a jury trial and requested that specific jury instructions be given before deliberation. King requested that the court include instructions on confusion as a defense to refusing to take the test, arguing that if the jury found that he was confused when offered the test, he could be acquitted. The court denied King’s request, and the jury found King guilty of refusing to submit to chemical testing. King appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his requested jury instructions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McEvers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
