State v. Ezzell
Decision Date | 04 May 2021 |
Docket Number | No. COA20-50,COA20-50 |
Citation | 858 S.E.2d 375 |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Ronald Keith EZZELL |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Yvonne B. Ricci, for the State-Appellee.
Anne Bleyman, for the Defendant-Appellant.
¶ 1 Defendant Ronald Keith Ezzell appeals from judgment entered upon a jury verdict of guilty of driving while impaired. Defendant argues that his conviction must be vacated because the trial court erred by denying his motions to suppress his arrest and evidence gained as a result of his arrest. Defendant contends that his warrantless arrest was not supported by probable cause and that the trial court was required to apply the rules of evidence to testimony given during the hearing on Defendant's motions to suppress. We discern no error.
¶ 2 On 28 December 2009, Trooper Brian Theis of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol cited Defendant for driving while impaired, displaying an expired registration plate, driving while license revoked, and driving with an open container. On 12 October 2010, the district court found Defendant guilty of all charges; on that date Defendant appealed to superior court for a trial de novo.
¶ 3 Prior to trial in superior court, the driving while license revoked and driving with an open container charges were dismissed. On 18 July 2016, Defendant filed pretrial motions to suppress his arrest, any evidence gained as a result of his arrest, and any testimony by Theis concerning the administration of and interpretation of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus ("HGN") test. The trial court heard Defendant's motions and entered an order denying them that same day. In the order, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
or jerking of the eyes at certain points in the movement of eyes which is an indicator of impairment. The test requires an individual suspected of impairment to follow with their eyes a stimulus being moved approximately 12 inches in front of their face. The stimulus is initially moved from left to right and followed by the eyes of the individual being tested without the individual moving their head. First the officer is looking to see that the eyes move together with equal tracking of the stimulus. If so the officer then proceeds with the remaining portions of the test. Second the officer is looking for smooth pursuit by the eyes of the stimulus. Nonsmooth pursuit or jerking of the eyes as they move with the stimulus is an indication of impairment and is observed as to each eye. Third the officer checks for distinct and sustained nystagmus when the individual's eyes are at maximum deviation. As the stimulus is held far to the left and then to the right, each eye is observed for the distinct and sustained nystagmus which if present is an indication of impairment. Fourth the officer moves the stimulus from center to a 45 degree angle with each eye. The onset of nystagmus prior to reaching the 45 degree angle is an indication of impairment. Thus there are three clues for impairment as to each eye or six in total. HGN testing has been found to be sufficiently reliable to be admissible in the trial of driving while impaired in other appellate cases to which this Court takes judicial notice.
4. Trooper Theis performed the HGN test on the defendant with the cooperation and consent of the defendant and the testing was performed consistent with the appropriate methods of testing and experience of the Trooper. The HGN test was performed on the defendant while the defendant was seated in the patrol car, however, there is no indication that HGN testing could not be performed in such a manner nor that it would affect its reliability. The HGN testing of the defendant revealed all six indications of impairment. The Trooper has also found the HGN testing to be reliable in the detection of impairment in other driving while impaired investigations conducted by him.
5. Also prior to arrest the defendant referred to the Trooper as [ma'am] on several occasions and he had a stuttered speech. Based on the Trooper's observations and extensive experience he formed an opinion that the defendant had consumed a sufficient quantity of an impairing substance so as to appreciably impair the mental and physical faculties of the defendant and placed the defendant under arrest for driving while impaired. There were no other indications of impairment prior to defendant's arrest, however, no other field tests were performed as a result of the danger that would be posed by the high traffic area.
¶ 4 Based on these findings of fact, the trial court made the following conclusions of law:
¶ 5 The case came on for trial in superior court on 11 June 2019. At trial, the expired registration charge was dismissed at the close of the State's evidence. The trial court overruled Defendant's objections to the evidence flowing from the arrest and Theis’ HGN testimony when Defendant renewed them at trial. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Town of Apex v. Rubin
-
In re A.C.
...court is bound by statute to make all four findings consistent with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-906.2(d). See In re A.W. , 2021-NCCOA-182, ¶ 42, 858 S.E.2d 375 (holding to cease reunification the trial court must make the statutorily required findings of fact related to whether parent demonstrated......