State v. Moore
| Decision Date | 12 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 584,584 |
| Citation | 95 S.E.2d 548,245 N.C. 158 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Squlre MOORE, Jr. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Robert S. Cahoon, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.
George B. Patton, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Giles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
While this appeal contains numerous assignments of error, founded upon exceptions to evidence offered, and to the charge, the basic question presented is this: Did the trial court err in finding the witness Davis (1) qualified as an expert to testify on the subject of chemical analysis of human blood to determine alcoholic content thereof, and (2) qualified as an expert to testify as to the effects of certain percentages of alcohol in the blood stream?
If the witness were qualified, his testimony was competent, and if he were not, it would be incompetent.
In this connection this Court has uniformly held that the competency of a witness to testify as an expert is a question primarily addressed to the court, and his discretion is ordinarily conclusive, that is, unless there be no evidence to support the finding, or unless the judge abuse his discretion. LaVecchia v. North Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank, 218 N.C. 35, 9 S. E.2d 489, and cases cited. See also State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 278, 20 S.E.2d 313; In re Humphrey, 236 N.C. 142, 71 S.E.2d 915; Samet v. Boston Ins. Co., 237 N.C. 758, 75 S.E.2d 913. Annotation 166 A.L.R. 1067.
In the Smith case, supra, Seawell, J., writing for the Court, declared [221 N. C. 278, 20 S.E.2d 319]:
Here the witness testified in detail as to his study, training and experience. He was then tendered by the State as an expert haemotologist and clinical technologist and technician and chemist. Objection by defendant was overruled, and the witness was permitted to testify in the capacity of an expert. This was tantamount to the judge holding him to be an expert in the field of his testimony. The testimony indicates the knowledge and experience of the witness in conducting experiments as to alcoholic content in the blood of a human being, and as to the effect of alcohol upon the human system in respect to intoxication, when introduced into the blood stream. Thus it appears that there is abundant evidence to support the holding of the judge that the witness Davis is such expert.
Indeed in State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E.2d 899, this Court considered the question as to whether expert testimony as to the results of a blood...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Conterno
...holding the test is scientifically established; accord, State v. McQuilkin, 1948, 113 Utah 268, 193 P.2d 433, 436; State v. Moore, 1956, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E.2d 548, 550-551; State v. Libby, 1957, 153 Me. 1, 133 A.2d 877, 881; Stacy v. State, Ark.1957, 306 S.W.2d 852, 855, holding such test......
-
State v. Vestal
...particular subject as to which he testifies. Paris v. Carolina Portable, Aggregates, Inc., 271 N.C. 471, 157 S.E.2d 131; State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E.2d 548; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 133. There is in this record substantially more evidence of the expertness of M......
-
State v. Barfield
...of the trial court judge and will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence in the record to support his finding. State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E.2d 548 (1956). The absence of an express finding in the record that the witness is qualified as an expert is no ground for challenging......
-
Crocker v. Roethling
...that is, unless there be no evidence to support the finding, or unless the judge abuse his discretion." State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 164, 95 S.E.2d 548, 552 (1956). However, here, the pertinent inquiry is whether the trial court properly applied the statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. § 90-......