{
  "id": 11298801,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED McCOTTER HOLTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Holton",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 743SC275",
  "first_page": "27",
  "last_page": "29",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 27"
    }
  ],
  "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": "189 S.E. 2d 570",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553342
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0730-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 875",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559188
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 726",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555654
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0726-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559383
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 129",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560935
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550002
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S.C. 1826",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "S.C.",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 U.S. 757",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12047531
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/384/0757-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 4914,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.23952902273453008
    },
    "sha256": "63e5d1816c68cb9c91c9c65219a8461e64db9d4882dbdcf339e23189528c1104",
    "simhash": "1:0f6be3e6754ffb6b",
    "word_count": 816
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED McCOTTER HOLTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CARSON, Judge.\nThe defendant contends that the trial court committed error in allowing the arresting officer to testify as to the results of the physical performance tests given to the defendant at the police station. Defendant says he was not advised of his right to refuse the tests and the officer should not have been allowed to administer the tests because no foundation was laid as to the qualifications of the patrolman to administer the coordination tests. The defendant contends that since these requirements must be satisfied before the breathalyzer can be given, they must also be satisfied before any performance tests can be given. These contentions are without merit. The privilege against incrimination relates only to testimonial or communicative acts and does not apply to tests such as balance tests. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.C. 1826, 16 L.Ed. 2d 908; State v. Strickland, 5 N.C. App. 338, 168 S.E. 2d 697 (1969), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 276 N.C. 253, 173 S.E. 2d 129 (1970). The administering of the breathalyzer requires certain skills not possessed by the general public, State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E. 2d 706 (1973) ; State v. Powell, 10 N.C. App. 726, 179 S.E. 2d 785 (1971); while the administration of the balance tests can be done by anyone.\nOn cross-examination of the defendant the solicitor asked him the following question, \u201cThe Oasis Club is a beer joint, isn\u2019t it?\u201d The defendant contends that this question is extremely prejudicial. He alleges that it implies that a person who goes to the club goes there to drink beer and nothing else, and that the use of the word \u201cjoint\u201d carries a connotation of unwholesomeness and immorality. He contends that these two implications together were designed to and did picture the defendant an \u201can immoral degenerate who was drinking beer.\u201d This contention is also without merit. Wide latitude is provided to the defense counsel and to the solicitor on cross-examination. State v. Ross, 275 N.C. 550, 169 S.E. 2d 875 (1969) ; State v. Diaz, 14 N.C. App. 730, 189 S.E. 2d 570 (1972). Clearly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this question to be asked the defendant.\nOther assignments of error presented by the defendant have been considered carefully. We hold that they, also, lack merit and that the defendant received a fair and impartial trial.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CARSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney William A. Raney, Jr., for the State.",
      "Charles K. McCotter, Jr., for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRED McCOTTER HOLTON\nNo. 743SC275\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 126; Criminal Law \u00a7 64\u2014 drunken driving \u2014 coordination tests \u2014 advising of right to refuse \u2014 qualifications of administering officer\nAn officer\u2019s testimony as to the results of physical performance tests given at the police station to a defendant charged with drunken driving was not rendered inadmissible by the fact defendant was not advised that he had a right to refuse the tests or by the fact that no foundation was laid as to the qualifications of the officer to administer the coordination tests.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 126; Criminal Law \u00a7 88\u2014 drunken driving \u2014 question about \u201cbeer joint\u201d\nIn a prosecution for drunken driving, defendant was not prejudiced when the solicitor asked him on cross-examination whether the Oasis Club, to which defendant had been prior to his arrest, was a \u201cbeer joint.\u201d\nAppeal from Cowper, Judge, 5 November 1973 Session of Craven County Superior Court. Argued in the Court of Appeals 9 April 1974.\nThe defendant was convicted in District Court of driving while under the influence of intoxicants. He appealed to Superior Court where a trial de novo was held. From a verdict of guilty and an active sentence pronounced thereon, the defendant appealed to this court.\nOfficer W. R. Mumford, Jr., testified that he saw the defendant operating his motor vehicle on a public road in New Bern at about 4:10 a.m. on 23 August 1973. The automobile was moving erratically and weaving across the road. The officer stopped the vehicle and observed the defendant. He testified that the defendant\u2019s speech was slurred, that he had an odor of alcohol about him, that he had difficulty producing his license and that he had difficulty getting out of the car. The officer formed the opinion that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating beverages and placed him under arrest. He was advised of his constitutional rights and taken to the police station where a breathalyzer test was administered. Other coordination tests were given to the defendant at the police station and he performed them in an unsatisfactory fashion. The breathalyzer test showed the defendant\u2019s blood alcohol level to be .17 percent. The defendant told the arresting officer that he had been drinking beer at the Oasis Club and had consumed a total of five beers.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney William A. Raney, Jr., for the State.\nCharles K. McCotter, Jr., for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0027-01",
  "first_page_order": 59,
  "last_page_order": 61
}