Melton v. Hodges

Decision Date17 May 1994
Docket NumberNo. 9310SC926,9310SC926
Citation443 S.E.2d 83,114 N.C.App. 795
PartiesWalter Daniel MELTON, Petitioner, v. Robert F. HODGES, Commissioner, Division of Motor Vehicles of the State of North Carolina, Respondent.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

John F. Oates, Jr., Raleigh, for petitioner appellant.

Attorney General Michael F. Easley by Asst. Atty. Gen., Bryan E. Beatty, Raleigh, for respondent appellee.

COZORT, Judge.

Petitioner appeals from a judgment affirming the revocation of his driving privileges for one year based on his willful refusal to submit to an intoxilyzer test. Petitioner's sole argument on appeal is that the superior court abused its discretion by basing its decision on unreliable and incompetent hearsay evidence. We find this argument unpersuasive and affirm the judgment entered.

The parties stipulated that the sole issue to be decided by the superior court was whether the charging officer at the time of the arrest had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner had committed an implied consent offense. In resolving this issue, the court found as follows:

2. On April 3, 1992 at approximately 9:10 pm, Officer George Daniels of the Cary Police Dept. responded to a radio call to investigate a report of suspected impaired driver. Officer Daniels arrived at the residence where two female witnesses were waiting outside.

3. [Officer] Daniels spoke with the two witnesses who identified themselves as Ms. Jewell and Ms. Bottger [sic ]. The witnesses stated that they observed a motor vehicle travelling at a high rate of speed [that] almost ran the witness's vehicle off of the road on the Cary Parkway. The witnesses followed the vehicle and observed it weaving and run off the road and strike a stop sign. The witnesses followed the vehicle to the residence and observed a man in a white shirt and blue pants exit the vehicle and fall to the ground. The man went into the residence. One of the witnesses contacted the Cary Police Department while the other waited at the residence. The witnesses told Officer Daniels that only three to five minutes passed from the time the police department was contacted to the time Officer Daniels arrived at the residence.

4. Officer Daniels felt the hood and exhaust pipe of the vehicle that the witnesses said they followed to the residence. The hood and exhaust pipe were hot. Officer Daniels also observed a liquor bottle in the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

5. Officer Daniels went to the door of the residence and was allowed to enter the residence by petitioner's wife. Officer Daniels observed petitioner in the residence. Petitioner had a strong odor of alcohol on his person and was unable to stand without staggering. Petitioner told Officer Daniels that he had not driven a vehicle since he arrived home from work some hours earlier. Petitioner stated that his wife had just arrived home. She had driven a vehicle other than the one the witnesses followed.

6. Officer Daniels notice[d] that petitioner was wearing a white shirt and blue pants. His clothing was disorderly and the shirt had a grass stain on it.

7. Officer Daniels inspected the motor vehicle the witnesses said they followed to the residence and noticed a small scratch on the front bumper.

8. Based on the information he received from the two witnesses regarding their observations of the operation of the motor vehicle and also upon his own observations of petitioner and the vehicle, the witnesses said they followed, Officer Daniels formed the opinion that petitioner had been driving while impaired. Officer Daniels arrested petitioner for driving while impaired.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that when Officer Daniels arrested petitioner, he had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner had committed an implied consent offense.

Officer Daniels was the sole witness at the hearing in the court below. He was permitted to testify,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Steinkrause v. Tatum
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 2009
    ...his determination of reasonable grounds on information given by one known to him to be reasonably reliable. Melton v. Hodges, 114 N.C.App. 795, 798, 443 S.E.2d 83, 85 (1994). In this case, an officer on the scene smelled an odor of alcohol about the Petitioner. That the arresting officer di......
  • MVA v. McDorman
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • May 14, 2001
    ...hearsay evidence may meet substantial evidence test to support revocation of license if relevant and probative); Melton v. Hodges, 114 N.C.App. 795, 443 S.E.2d 83, 85 (1994) (stating that, in determining whether reasonable grounds exist under implied consent statute, the reasonable grounds ......
  • Bullard v. USAir, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1994
  • State v. Vareen, No. COA05-649 (NC 2/21/2006)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 21, 2006
    ...of the two police officers in talking to the defendant at the residence resulting in the defendant's arrest); Melton v. Hodges, 114 N.C. App. 795, 798, 443 S.E.2d 83, 85 (1994) (holding officer's testimony about statements made to officer by witnesses at the scene were not hearsay because t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT