{
  "id": 8549164,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE CARSON DOGGETT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Doggett",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7925SC105",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 304"
    }
  ],
  "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": "285 N.C. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567152,
        8567041,
        8567075,
        8567112
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0597-04",
        "/nc/285/0597-01",
        "/nc/285/0597-02",
        "/nc/285/0597-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "710"
        }
      ],
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3276,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.837,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3008853025794168
    },
    "sha256": "9dee7f0cf2b60f3f25f83b48bcd6a6e07889d3e524510eac8ec4413cd827c407",
    "simhash": "1:2234b02d46113a1a",
    "word_count": 535
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:40.540741+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and ERWIN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE CARSON DOGGETT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nG.S. 20-139.1(b) sets out the two requirements for making breathalyzer test results admissible in evidence: the test shall have been performed (1) according to methods approved by the Commission for Health Services (2) by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the Department of Human Resources. Defendant does not contest the methods used for administering the test, but he does argue that no showing has been made that the administering officer possessed a valid permit at the time he gave the test.\nTrooper Jack Richardson of the Highway Patrol administered the breathalyzer test to defendant. Richardson testified that he holds certificate number 2109 from the Department of Human Resources stating that he is qualified as a breathalyzer operator. Defendant argues that though Richardson may indeed have held such a permit on 27 September, the day of trial, there is no evidence that he held such a permit on the prior 27 March, the day of the offense.\nOur holding, based upon the Supreme Court decision in State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E. 2d 706, reh. denied 285 N.C. 597 (1973), is that the State presented sufficient evidence to satisfy G.S. 20-139.1(b). In Eubanks, the administering officer \u201ctestified that he attended the breathalyzer operator\u2019s school\u201d and that \u201che received a certificate issued by the North Carolina State Board of Health.\u201d Id. at 563, 196 S.E. 2d at 710. (Prior to the 1975 amendment of the statute, the Commission for Health Services was the appropriate agency to issue permits.) The court found this testimony to be sufficient to establish the admissibility of the test results. No mention was made of the fact that the testimony did not establish when the permit had been issued.\nWe believe that in the case sub judice Richardson\u2019s testimony provides the basis for a reasonable inference that he possessed the valid permit at the time he administered the test. Nothing appears to the contrary; in fact, Richardson testified in detail about the simulator test he ran before testing defendant, saying that when he got a reading he knew, \u201caccording to my training,\u201d that it was within the permissible limits.\nWe find that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and ERWIN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Isaac T. Avery III, for the State.",
      "Ingle & Joyner, by John D. Ingle, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE CARSON DOGGETT\nNo. 7925SC105\n(Filed 15 May 1979)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 126.3\u2014 breathalyzer test \u2014 possession of permit by operator \u2014 failure to show when issued\nTestimony by a breathalyzer operator that he holds certificate number 2109 from the Department of Human Resources stating that he is qualified as a breathalyzer operator provided the basis for a reasonable inference that he possessed a valid permit at the time he administered a breathalyzer test to defendant, although it was not established when the permit was issued.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Ferrell, Judge. Judgment entered 27 September 1978 in Superior Court, CATAWBA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 April 1979.\nDefendant was convicted of driving under the influence and was given a suspended sentence of 60 days. He appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Isaac T. Avery III, for the State.\nIngle & Joyner, by John D. Ingle, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 334
}