{
  "id": 8524277,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEMANUEL DeVANE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. DeVane",
  "decision_date": "1986-06-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 855SC1373",
  "first_page": "524",
  "last_page": "526",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "81 N.C. App. 524"
    }
  ],
  "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": "204 S.E. 2d 919",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556810
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0541-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 3079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.785,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20553263916158818
    },
    "sha256": "7d755cc6291478f4f8e31e608679639952c77d4daed9f377aa764af990c12f3d",
    "simhash": "1:c4ff1153bcff966f",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:31:13.412578+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEMANUEL DeVANE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nIn appealing his conviction of driving while impaired in violation of G.S. 20-138.1, defendant makes but two contentions, neither of which has merit. His first contention is that during his cross-examination of the operator of the breathalyzer machine, a model manufactured by Stevenson Corporation, the trial judge expressed a disparaging opinion about his case and the way it was being handled by questioning the witness and conversing with defense counsel as follows:\nQ. The COURT: Do you know where Mr. Stevenson went to school?\nA. No sir.\nDefense Counsel: Who?\nTHE COURT: Mr. Stevenson.\nDefense Counsel: Who is Mr. Stevenson?\nThe COURT: You said he said he was the inventor of the machine, didn\u2019t you?\nDefense Counsel: No sir.\nThe COURT: Somebody just did.\nDefense Counsel: I don\u2019t recall that.\nThe COURT: Yeah, somebody just said that.\nDEFENSE Counsel: No sir, the inventor of the machine is a Mr. Borkanstein, Professor Robert F. Borkanstein, Department of Forensic Science Studies, Indiana University.\nThe Court: All right.\nIn our opinion nothing in this interchange cast defendant, his case or his lawyer in an unfavorable light before the jury; it was a harmless effort to identify the inventor of the machine used in testing defendant, a matter of no moment to either the case or the jury.\nHis only other contention is that the court erred in refusing his request to instruct the jury that the breathalyzer result should not be considered by them unless they found first that the test was performed in accord with regulations promulgated by the Commission of Health Services. As was ruled in State v. Jenkins, 21 N.C. App. 541, 204 S.E. 2d 919 (1974), the court was not required to give the instruction.\nNo error.\nJudges Martin and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for the State.",
      "Yow, Yow, Culbreth & Fox, by Stephen E. Culbreth and Ralph S. Pennington, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEMANUEL DeVANE\nNo. 855SC1373\n(Filed 17 June 1986)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99.6\u2014 court\u2019s questioning of witness \u2014colloquy with counsel\u2014 no expression of opinion by court\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that, during defendant\u2019s cross-examination of the operator of a breathalyzer machine, the trial judge expressed a disparaging opinion about his case and the way it was being handled by questioning the witness and conversing with defense counsel as to the identity of the inventor of the breathalyzer machine.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 129.3\u2014 driving while impaired \u2014 instructions on breathalyzer test evidence not required\nIn a prosecution of defendant for driving while impaired, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury that the breathalyzer result should not be considered by them unless they found first that the test was performed in accord with regulations promulgated by the Commission of Health Services.\nAppeal by defendant from Winberry, Judge. Judgment entered 25 July 1985 in Superior Court, New HANOVER County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 May 1986.\nAttorney General Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Isaac T. Avery, III, for the State.\nYow, Yow, Culbreth & Fox, by Stephen E. Culbreth and Ralph S. Pennington, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0524-01",
  "first_page_order": 548,
  "last_page_order": 550
}
