{
  "id": 8553498,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RAY TYNDALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tyndall",
  "decision_date": "1973-07-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 738SC99",
  "first_page": "669",
  "last_page": "671",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 669"
    }
  ],
  "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": "194 S.E. 2d 55",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555066
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 820",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555269
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0663-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3520,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7512963841156453e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8952413827987655
    },
    "sha256": "bb9ea39bbee0762fe7312c7cc9f5f8c2d8eda64eee917a1a75e59e07592a2cfc",
    "simhash": "1:466a64888df704af",
    "word_count": 583
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RAY TYNDALL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe defendant contends the court erred in not striking the testimony of the Highway Patrolman that the defendant stated that he had been drinking. When the patrolman stopped the defendant, he asked him whether he had been drinking and the defendant made the admission complained of. Defendant argues that the challenged statement was inadmissible because the officer had not given him the \u201cMiranda warnings.\u201d We do not agree. Under the circumstances of this case, the rules of Miranda have no application. State v. Beasley, 10 N.C. App. 663, 179 S.E. 2d 820 (1971). This assignment of error is not sustained.\nThe defendant contends that he never waived his right to counsel and was not informed of his statutory rights under G.S. 20-16.2 (a) prior to the time he consented to take the breathalyzer examination. Before admitting into evidence the results of the breathalyzer test, the trial judge conducted a voir dire in the absence of the jury and made findings and conclusions that the defendant had been advised of his rights under the provisions of G.S. 20-16.2 (a) and that he waived those rights and consented to take the test. State v. Shadding, 17 N.C. App. 279, 194 S.E. 2d 55 (1973). The findings made by the trial judge are supported by plenary competent evidence in the record. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s trial in the Superior Court was free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Donald A. Davis for the State.",
      "Douglas P. Connor for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD RAY TYNDALL\nNo. 738SC99\n(Filed 11 July 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 75 \u2014 statement by person stopped for drunken driving \u2014 absence of Miranda warnings\nThe requirements of Miranda v. Arizona were inapplicable when a highway patrolman stopped defendant and asked him whether he had been drinking, and defendant\u2019s statement that he had been drinking was properly admitted in his prosecution for drunken driving although he had not been given the Miranda warnings.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 126 \u2014 breathalyzer test \u2014 statutory warnings\nThe evidence on voir dire supported the trial court\u2019s determination that defendant had been advised of his rights under the provisions of G.S. 20-16.2 (a) prior to the time he consented to take a breathalyzer test and that defendant waived those rights and consented to take the test.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, Judge, 18 September 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Wayne County.\nDefendant, Donald Ray Tyndall, was charged in a warrant, proper in form, with driving an automobile upon a public highway of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Upon his plea of not guilty, the State offered evidence tending to show that at about 11:85 p.m., 12 March 1972, R. D. McQuage of the North Carolina Highway Patrol observed an automobile on U. S. 70 near Goldsboro being operated by the defendant. The patrolman stopped the vehicle and observed that the defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath. A breathalyzer test administered by Officer Kenneth Ross revealed that the defendant had a blood alcohol content of .17 percent.\nDefendant testified and admitted that he had drunk about two quarts of beer but denied that he was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged and from a judgment imposing a jail sentence of 90 days, suspended on condition that he pay a fine of $100.00 and costs, he appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Donald A. Davis for the State.\nDouglas P. Connor for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0669-01",
  "first_page_order": 693,
  "last_page_order": 695
}