{
  "id": 8555185,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN ALLEN SAWYER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sawyer",
  "decision_date": "1975-08-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7519SC196",
  "first_page": "728",
  "last_page": "732",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 728"
    }
  ],
  "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": "184 S.E. 2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571466
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 745",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562785
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 626",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561787
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0321-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 495,
    "char_count": 10007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8015730109034897e-07,
      "percentile": 0.836876010918011
    },
    "sha256": "182f226f62889634593d5bf5971524341d27a94d901ed1f6b5d8df46f00821f4",
    "simhash": "1:3337382f7d8f9003",
    "word_count": 1650
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN ALLEN SAWYER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe trial court sustained an objection to the following question asked the panel of prospective jurors by defendant\u2019s counsel:\n\u201cIs there any member of the panel that would convict the defendant solely upon the results of a breathalyzer test, .if the results exceeded .10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant\u2019s blood?\u201d\nThere was no error in this ruling.\nThe voir dire examination of prospective jurors has a double purpose, (1) to ascertain whether grounds for challenge for cause exist and (2) to enable counsel to exercise intelligently the peremptory challenges allowed by law. However, counsel\u2019s examination into the fitness of jurors is subject to the trial judge\u2019s close supervision, and the regulation of the manner and extent of counsel\u2019s inquiry rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 321, 200 S.E. 2d 626 (1973). An ambiguous, confusing hypothetical question, or one containing an incorrect or inadequate statement of the law, is improper to submit to prospective jurors. State v. Bryant, 282 N.C. 92, 191 S.E. 2d 745 (1972). The question which defendant\u2019s counsel sought to ask in this case is based on an inadequate statement of the law. In this connection we note that the amendment to G.S. 20-138 made by Chap. 1081 of the 1973 Session Laws did not become effective until 1 January 1975 and is thus not applicable to this case. There has been no abuse of the trial court\u2019s discretion in sustaining the district attorney\u2019s objection to counsel\u2019s question to the prospective jurors, and this assignment of error is overruled.\nBefore the results of the breathalyzer test w\u00e9re admitted in evidence, Patrolman Byrd, the State\u2019s witness who administered the test, testified that at the time the test was administered he possessed a valid and currently effective permit from the State Board of Health for administering a breathalyzer test and that in giving the test he followed the methods, techniques, and procedures as prescribed by the State Board of Health. He also testified that prior to giving the test he informed defendant both verbally and in writing of his rights as required by G.S. 20-16.2 (a). Since competent evidence was admitted to show that the requirements of G.S. 20-139.1 and of G.S. 20-16.2 (a) had been satisfied, the results of the test were properly admitted in evidence. State v. Powell, 279 N.C. 608, 184 S.E. 2d 243 (1971).\nDuring cross-examination of Sergeant Blackwell, defendant\u2019s counsel asked this witness whether \u201cunder the law you are required to assist a defendant who requests a blood test, help and aid in getting a blood test and take him to a person to get one.\u201d An objection to that question was sustained and counsel again asked in substance the same question, objection to which was again sustained. Had the witness been permitted to answer, he would have testified, \u201cWe are required to assist a person, yes, sir.\u201d Defendant now assigns error to the exclusion of this testimony. There was no error in the court\u2019s rulings sustaining the district attorney\u2019s objections. The opinion of the witness as to the law was not competent in evidence. See 1 Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence (Brandis Rev.) \u00a7 130. Defendant\u2019s contention on this appeal that by sustaining these objections the trial court improperly suppressed evidence that defendant\u2019s statutory rights were violated is not properly presented by this or any other assignment of error. Nevertheless, we have carefully considered defendant\u2019s contention and find that defendant was accorded all the rights provided by Chapter 20 of the General Statutes to a person arrested for a violation of G.S. 20-138. Under G.S. 20-139.1 (d) the person tested for alcohol content of blood under the direction of a law enforcement officer may have an additional chemical test or tests administered to him by a physician or other qualified person of his own choosing. G.S. 20-139.1 (d) further provides that any law enforcement officer having in his charge any person who has submitted to the chemical test under the provisions of G.S. 20-16.2, \u201cshall assist such person in contacting a qualified person as set forth above for the purpose of administering such additional test.\u201d The record shows that after the breathalyzer test was administered, defendant was allowed to contact a physician of his choice, Dr. Wilhoit, and that Sergeant Blackwell then took defendant to Randolph County Hospital to meet Dr. Wilhoit for the express purpose of administering a \u201cblood alcohol test\u201d to defendant. Defendant\u2019s attorney, who had been called to witness the breathalyzer test but who arrived at the courthouse too late to do so, was also present at the hospital. Dr. Wilhoit testified that he drew a sample of defendant\u2019s blood which he gave to defendant\u2019s attorney, that the Randolph County Hospital did not do this type of analysis, and that he \u201cwas informed by the nurse and the officer\u201d that the only way he could get the sample sent to North Carolina Memorial Hospital at Chapel Hill was by authorization of the arresting officer. Sergeant Blackwell testified that he \u201cwas asked to sign some forms at the hospital,\u201d which he did not do because he had not requested that the additional test be taken. Apparently this refusal of the arresting officer to sign the forms at the Randolph County Hospital is the basis of defendant\u2019s present contention that his statutory rights were denied him in this case. However, on the record before us we find that defendant suffered no such denial of rights as to affect the validity of his trial and conviction. The arresting officer, when requested to do so, did promptly take him to the doctor chosen by defendant to administer the additional test, thereby complying with the mandate of G.S. 20-139.1 (d). The blood sample was drawn by the doctor, and was delivered to defendant\u2019s attorney. It was defendant\u2019s responsibility to see to obtaining its analysis. That he failed to do so did not render the results of the breathalyzer test incompetent in evidence. G.S. 20-139.1 (d) expressly provides that \u201c[t]he failure or inability of the person tested to obtain an additional test shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test or tests taken at the direction of a law-enforcement officer.\u201d\nWe have carefully examined all of defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error and find no prejudicial error in defendant\u2019s trial or in the judgment entered.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery III for the State.",
      "Ottway Burton and Millicent Gibson for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN ALLEN SAWYER\nNo. 7519SC196\n(Filed 6 August 1975)\n1. Jury \u00a7 6\u2014 examination of jurors \u2014 question based on inadequate statement of law\nThe trial court in a prosecution for drunken driving did not err in refusing to permit defense counsel to ask prospective jurors whether there was \u201cany member of the panel that would convict the defendant solely upon the results of a breathalyzer test, if the results exceeded .10 percent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant\u2019s blood,\u201d since the question was based upon an inadequate statement of the law.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 126; Criminal Law \u00a7 64 \u2014 admissibility of breathalyzer results\nThe results of a breathalyzer test were properly admitted in evidence where competent evidence was presented to show that the requirements of G.S. 20-139.1 and G.S. 20-16.2 (a) had been satisfied.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 126; Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 50, 64 \u2014 witness\u2019s opinion as to law\nThe trial court in a prosecution for drunken driving did not err in the exclusion of an officer\u2019s testimony that he was required under the law to assist a defendant who requests a blood test since the opinion of the witness as to the law was not competent in evidence.\n4. Automobiles \u00a7 126; Criminal Law \u00a7 64 \u2014 breathalyzer test \u2014 additional private test \u2014 officer\u2019s failure to authorize analysis\nWhere a defendant arrested for drunken driving was administered a breathalyzer test by a law officer, defendant was thereafter allowed to contact a physician of his choice, the arresting officer took defendant to the county hospital so that a blood alcohol test could be conducted by the physician, the physician drew a sample of defendant\u2019s blood which he gave to defendant\u2019s attorney, and the county hospital did not do the required type of analysis, refusal of the arresting officer to sign forms authorizing that the blood sample be sent to N. C. Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill for analysis did not violate defendant\u2019s rights under G.S. 20-139.1 (d) and render the breathalyzer results inadmissible since the officer complied with the mandate of the statute by taking defendant to a physician of his choice for the additional test and it was defendant\u2019s responsibility to obtain an analysis of the blood sample.\nAppeal by defendant from Seay, Judge. Judgment entered 1 November 1974 in Superior Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 1975.\nDefendant was convicted in district court of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On appeal to superior court he again pled not guilty and was tried de novo.\nThe State\u2019s evidence showed: At approximately 1:30 a.m., 15 December 1973, N. C. Highway Patrol Sergeant Blackwell stopped an automobile he had observed twice veer across the center line while it was proceeding on a rural paved road near Asheboro. Defendant was the vehicle\u2019s driver and sole occupant. Noticing an odor of alcohol on defendant\u2019s breath and observing him to stagger and be unsteady on his feet, Blackwell arrested defendant and took him to the Randolph County Jail. A breathalyzer test showed .12 percent by weight of alcohol in defendant\u2019s blood.\nDefendant testified and denied he was intoxicated but admitted he had been drinking beer. The jury found him guilty as charged and from judgment imposing a suspended sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Isaac T. Avery III for the State.\nOttway Burton and Millicent Gibson for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0728-01",
  "first_page_order": 756,
  "last_page_order": 760
}