{
  "id": 8550599,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIAS PROSSER GRAY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gray",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7527SC770",
  "first_page": "506",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 506"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 S.E. 2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 431",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551907
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "432"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0431-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 2833,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.145196660963924e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5799795663762637
    },
    "sha256": "c9cc0f599bf042a58381b6c7dc6a2c309011804fddb9dff7e8d87134f2143c00",
    "simhash": "1:d31fdd77e487846f",
    "word_count": 454
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIAS PROSSER GRAY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\n\u2022 Defendant contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the breathalyzer test over his objection in view of the State\u2019s failure to establish as a foundational-requirement that the test, as performed, met the operational standards prescribed by statute. We agree. The failure of the State to produce evidence of the test operator\u2019s compliance with G.S. 20-139.1 (b) must be deemed prejudicial error.\nDuring the course of the trial, W. P. Thomas, a qualified operator of the breathalyzer machine, testified on voir dire that he administered the test to defendant after advising him of his \u201crights.\u201d The record, however, does not indicate whether Mr. Thomas followed the statutorily prescribed methods of administering the test. Under G.S. 20-139.1 (b), \u201c[e]hemical analy-ses of the person\u2019s breath .or blood, to be considered valid under the provisions of this section, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Commission for Health Services and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Commission for Health Services for this purpose.\u201d The burden of proving compliance with G.S. 20-139.1 (b) lies with the State and \u201c . . . the failure to offer any proof is not sanctioned by the courts. ...\u201d State v. Warf, 16 N.C. App. 431, 432, 192 S.E. 2d 37 (1972). The State\u2019s failure to lay the proper foundation for the admission of evidence of the results of the breathalyzer test entitles defendant to a new trial.\nWe deem it unnecessary to address the other contentions raised by the defendant.\nNew trial.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney. General Edmisten, by Associate .Attorneys T. Lawrence Pollard and Joan H. Byers, for the State.",
      "Harris and Bumgardner, by Don H. Bumgwrdner, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIAS PROSSER GRAY\nNo. 7527SC770\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 126 \u2014 breathalyzer test \u2014 method of administration \u2014 failure of State to show\nDefendant charged with driving under the influence is entitled to a new trial since the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a breathalyzer test over defendant\u2019s objection where the State failed to carry its burden of proving that the statutorily prescribed methods were followed in administering the test. G.S. 20-139.1 (b).\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, Judge. Judgment entered 14 July -1975 in Superior Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 January 1976.\nDefendant was tried in the District Court upon a warrant charging him with driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and was convicted. On appeal to the Superior Court and upon his plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. From judgment sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, defendant ap-. pealed.\nAttorney. General Edmisten, by Associate .Attorneys T. Lawrence Pollard and Joan H. Byers, for the State.\nHarris and Bumgardner, by Don H. Bumgwrdner, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0506-01",
  "first_page_order": 534,
  "last_page_order": 535
}