{ "id": 8576177, "name": "STATE v. JODIE WILLIS WEBB", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Webb", "decision_date": "1965-11-03", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "546", "last_page": "548", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "265 N.C. 546" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 70", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614060 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S.E. 2d 860", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627922 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.C. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683131 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/77/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606795 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 821", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574695 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607032 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0259-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 367, "char_count": 5093, "ocr_confidence": 0.557, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3069095636868646e-07, "percentile": 0.6235624161871985 }, "sha256": "b7d3be72e5a4b48f002f93ca363eec0dd9d224b79fa4af5beec2edb4786ff8ab", "simhash": "1:5042ce9f76d740f1", "word_count": 889 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JODIE WILLIS WEBB." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nA qualified expert may testify as to the effect of certain percentages of alcohol in the blood stream of human beings provided the blood sample analyzed was timely taken, properly traced, and identified. State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E. 2d 899. Mr. Lutz\u2019s qualifications were stipulated. His testimony, quoted in the statement of facts, went to the jury on redirect examination without objection. Substantially identical testimony was held to have been properly admitted in State v. Dixon, 256 N.C. 698, 124 S.E. 2d 821; State v. Hart, 256 N.C. 645, 124 S.E. 2d 816; State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E. 2d 548; State v. Willard, supra. The Dixon and Hart cases, supra, also involved testimony by Mr. Lutz. Appellant\u2019s assignment of error based on the exception to the admission of Mr. Lutz\u2019s testimony is not sustained.\nThe exception to the entry of judgment is also overruled. A jury has full control of its verdict up until the time it is finally delivered to the court and ordered recorded by the judge. Accordingly, if the foreman makes a mistake in announcing it, he may correct himself or any one of the jurors may correct him. To preclude mistake, the Clerk\u2019s inquiry \u201cSo say you all?\u201d is directed to the panel immediately after their spokesman has declared the verdict. State v. Young, 77 N.C. 498. Even if all 12 jurors nod their assent, either the solicitor or counsel for defendant may then and there require that the jury be polled. The dissent of any juror at that time would be effectual. State v. Dow, 246 N.C. 644, 99 S.E. 2d 860; State v. Cephus, 241 N.C. 562, 86 S.E. 2d 70.\nIn this case, the foreman suffered a slip of the tongue which he recognized immediately and corrected before the Clerk could finish his inquiry to the others. The polling of the jury confirmed the true verdict.\nIn the trial below we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General T. W. Bruton; Charles D. Barham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; and Wilson B. Partin, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.", "Turner and Harrison for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JODIE WILLIS WEBB.\n(Filed 3 November, 1965.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 55\u2014\nIt is competent for a witness stipulated by tbe parties to be an expert to testify as to the effect of stated percentages of alcohol in the bloodstream, and that the percentage found by his test of the blood of defendant exceeded the amount at which all persons were under the influence of alcohol, it being shown that the sample analyzed was timely taken, properly traced and properly identified.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 130\u2014\nA jury has full control of its verdict up to the time it is delivered to the court and ordered recorded by the judge, and when the foreman makes a slip of the tongue which he corrects before the clerk can finish his inquiry as to whether all the jurors so say, and when the corrected verdict of guilty is confirmed by a poll of the jury, the acceptance of the verdict is without error.\nAppeal by defendant from Mintz, J., March 15, 1965 Session of LENOIR.\nDefendant was convicted in the LaGrange Recorder\u2019s Court of operating an automobile upon the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, G.S. 20-138. He appealed to the Superior Court where the State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following:\nHighway Patrolman B. A. Baker, traveling west on U. S. Highway No. 70 on November 21, 1964, about 6:00 p.m., met defendant who was driving east \u201calmost astride the center line.\u201d The officer avoided a collision by swerving to the right and, almost immediately, arrested defendant, who had a very strong odor of alcohol about him. In the opinion of Patrolman Baker, defendant \u201cwas appreciably under the influence of some intoxicating beverage.\u201d The officer asked him if he wanted a blood test. His wife, who was with him, advised defendant not to take a blood test but he decided to have one. The test was made by David P. Lutz, who it was stipulated, is \u201ca medical expert technologist qualified in the field of body fluid analysis.\u201d Mr. Lutz\u2019s analysis showed defendant\u2019s blood to have an alcoholic content of 0.18%. According to Mr. Lutz, \u201cSome persons are under the influence of intoxicating liquor at 0.10% and some at 0.12%. But everyone is under the influence at 0.15%.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that he was cold sober when Mr. Baker arrested him and that, if the officer detected the odor of alcohol upon him, it was left over from a party which had ended at 3:00 a.m. the preceding night.\nWhen the jury returned into court to announce its verdict the following proceedings were had:\nClerk of the Coubt: \u201cGentlemen, have you arrived at a verdict?\u201d\nANSWER by Spoicesman for the Jury: \u201cYes, we have.\u201d\nClerk of the Court: \u201cWhat is your verdict?\u201d\nAnswer by Spokesman for the Jury: \u201cNot guilty.\u201d\nClerk of the Court: \u201cNot guilty, so say \u2014?\u201d\nSpokesman for the Jury: \u201cEr, I mean, guilty.\u201d\nClerk of the Court: \u201cGuilty, so say you all?\u201d\nAt defendant\u2019s request, the jury was polled and each juror said that his verdict was guilty. The Clerk recorded a verdict of guilty. The Court imposed its judgment and defendant appealed.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton; Charles D. Barham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General; and Wilson B. Partin, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.\nTurner and Harrison for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0546-01", "first_page_order": 586, "last_page_order": 588 }