#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STONEY LEE MOORE

No. 7419SC561

(Filed 18 September 1974)

Appeal by defendant from Lwpton, Judge, 4 February 1974 Session of Randolph County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 September 1974.

Defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of G.S. 20-138. The State offered the testimony of the arresting officer who testified that he observed defendant’s car swerve to the right and back to the left as it approached a stoplight; that there was a vehicle between the defendant’s car and the officer’s marked patrol car; that as the officer passed this vehicle defendant’s car went completely in the opposite lane; that he stopped the car and found the defendant to be the driver; that he detected a strong odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath and that he placed defendant under arrest for driving under the influence.

The highway patrolman who gave defendant a breathalyzer test testified that the result of the test indicated. defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.14 percent by weight.

Defendant testified that although he had consumed some alcoholic beverages, he was not intoxicated and that he swerved his car only to avoid hitting a manhole cover. A witness for the defendant, who was riding in the car at the time of the arrest, testified that the defendant did not appear to be abnormal in any way prior to the time he was stopped. A witness for the defendant also testified to his good character and reputation. Defendant’s motion for a dismissal at the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all of the evidence was denied.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and the defendant appealed from judgment entered on the verdict.

Attorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Banks, for the State.

Bell, Ogburn and Redding, by Deane F. Bell, for defendant appellant.

*121MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant presents the record for review for possible errors. We have carefully reviewed the record and find that defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.