{
  "id": 8551861,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLEE W. ROBINETTE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinette",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7122SC645",
  "first_page": "224",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 224"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569892
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0644-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0237-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3961,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1540046093849542e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7689019707326566
    },
    "sha256": "1a0a1488887b09918ceac19ddcbfa03ec34a375c586ec512f4b041f727dec718",
    "simhash": "1:5fe4c86a0532c483",
    "word_count": 659
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLEE W. ROBINETTE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nIn the course of defining \u201cunder the influence of intoxicating liquor\u201d the court instructed the jury, in part, as follows:\n\u201cOur Court has said that a person is under the influence of some intoxicating beverage within the meaning of this statute when he has drunk a sufficient quantity of some intoxicating beverage to cause him to lose the normal control of his mental or bodily faculties, his mental or bodily capabilities, to such an extent that there is appreciable or noticeable impairment of either one or both of those faculties . . . . \u201d (Emphasis ours.)\nDefendant contends that the court\u2019s inclusion of the words \u201cor noticeable\u201d renders an otherwise satisfactory instruction so erroneous as to require a new trial. This assignment of error is overruled. See the opinion in State v. Combs, No. 7123SC654, filed in this Court this date, wherein' Judge Brock reviews, among other cases, the case of State v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 37 S.E. 2d 688, relied on by defendant. In State v. Lee, 237 N.C. 263, 74 S.E. 2d 654, the Court approved the use of the word, \u201cperceptibly\u201d instead of the word \u201cappreciably.\u201d To paraphrase a statement by the Court in Lee, we fail to see in the word \u201cnoticeable\u201d sufficient difference in meaning and common understanding from the rule given in Carroll as to constitute error.\nDefendant did not object to the admission of the result of the breathalyzer test, 0.27, which was administered to him within thirty or forty-five minutes of his arrest, but contends that the judge failed to correctly instruct the jury as to the presumption created by the statute, G.S. 20-139.1. We do not deem it necessary to set out the instructions in detail. It is sufficient to say that His Honor clearly instructed the jury that the word \u201cpresumption\u201d was used in the sense of a permissive inference, or 'prima facie evidence and that, despite the results of the test, the jury was at liberty to acquit defendant if they found his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cooke, 270 N.C. 644, 155 S.E. 2d 165. This assignment of error is overruled.\nWe have carefully considered all of defendant\u2019s assignments of error which were brought forward on appeal. In the trial we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General T. Buie Costen for the State.",
      "Collier, Harris and Homesley by Walter H. Jones, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARLEE W. ROBINETTE\nNo. 7122SC645\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 129\u2014 drunken driving \u2014 instructions on intoxication\nIn a prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicants, the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that a person is under the influence of intoxicants when he has drunk a sufficient quantity thereof to lose the normal control of his mental or bodily faculties to such an extent that there is appreciable \u201cor noticeable\u201d impairment of one or both of those faculties.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 129; Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 32, 55\u2014 breathalyzer result \u2014 presumptions\nIn a prosecution for drunken driving, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the presumption of intoxication raised under G.S. 20-139.1 by a breathalyzer test result of .27 was merely a permissive inference or prima facie evidence of intoxication and that, despite the results of the test, the jury was at liberty to acquit defendant if they found defendant\u2019s guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge, 18 May 1971 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Iredell County.\nDefendant was charged with operating a vehicle upon a highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.S. 20-138. He was found guilty in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Iredell County and appealed to the superior court. From a verdict of guilty and entry of judgment thereon in the superior court, defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General T. Buie Costen for the State.\nCollier, Harris and Homesley by Walter H. Jones, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0224-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 250
}