State v. Gray
| Decision Date | 04 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 7527SC770,7527SC770 |
| Citation | 221 S.E.2d 765,28 N.C.App. 506 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Elias Prosser GRAY. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Attys. T. Lawrence Pollard and Joan H. Byers, Raleigh, for the State.
Harris & Bumgardner, by Don H. Bumgardner, Gastonia, for defendant appellant.
Defendant contends, Inter alia, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the breathalyzer test over his objection in view of the State's failure to establish as a foundational requirement that the test, as performed, met the operation standards prescribed by statute. We agree. The failure of the State to produce evidence of the test operator's compliance with G.S. 20--139.1(b) must be deemed prejudicial error.
During the course of the trial, W. P. Thomas, a qualified operator of the breathalyzer machine, testified on voir dire that he administered the test to defendant after advising him of his 'rights'. The record, however, does not indicate whether Mr. Thomas followed the statutorily prescribed methods of administering the test. Under G.S. 20--139.1(b), '(c)hemical analyses of the person's breath or blood, to be considered valid under the provisions of this section, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Commission for Health Services and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Commission for Health Services for this purpose.' The burden of proving compliance with G.S. 20--139.1(b) lies with the State and '. . . the failure to offer any proof is not sanctioned by the courts . . ..' State v. Warf, 16 N.C.App. 431, 432, 192 S.E.2d 37, 39 (1972). The State's failure to lay the proper foundation for the admission of evidence of the results of the breathalyzer test entitles defendant to a new trial.
We deem it unnecessary to address the other contentions raised by the defendant.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roberts
...101 N.C.App. 659, 664, 400 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 330 N.C. 587, 411 S.E.2d 604 (1992) ; State v. Gray, 28 N.C.App. 506, 507, 221 S.E.2d 765, 765 (1976). In his brief, Defendant argues that Trooper Brown violated the "observation period" requirement by leaving Defend......
-
Gibson v. Faulkner
...for Health Services and by an individual possessing a valid permit" for that type of chemical analysis. State v. Gray, 28 N.C.App. 506, 507, 221 S.E.2d 765, 765 (1976). He argues that "[t]he burden of proving compliance with G.S. 20-139.1(b) lies with the State[,]" id., and that, in the cas......
-
State v. Williams
...a penalty are to be strictly construed[.]” Id. at 477, 448 S.E.2d at 544 (citation omitted); see also State v. Gray, 28 N.C.App. 506, 506–07, 221 S.E.2d 765, 765–66 (1976) (holding that failure of the State to show a breathalzyer test was properly administered required the suppression of al......
-
State v. Drdak
...State show compliance with the provisions of G.S. 20-139.1." Id. at 613, 334 S.E.2d at 269 (emphasis added). See also State v. Gray, 28 N.C.App. 506, 221 S.E.2d 765 (1976) (defendant charged with driving under the influence of alcohol entitled to a new trial because the State failed to carr......