{ "id": 5306524, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK CHARLES FREUND", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Freund", "decision_date": "1990-06-13", "docket_number": "No. 406A89", "first_page": "795", "last_page": "797", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "326 N.C. 795" } ], "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": "384 S.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "95 N.C. App. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5309774 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0732-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 S.E.2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 N.C. App. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522495 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/95/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 732", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5309774 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0732-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 266, "char_count": 3406, "ocr_confidence": 0.722, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15760996104406086 }, "sha256": "d0a03e99d73fcc9e96a82870374b84290e99d680b25625601ef7331d5a38e26b", "simhash": "1:e719e6ce65330377", "word_count": 566 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:38:26.587833+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK CHARLES FREUND" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MEYER, Justice.\nOn 4 June 1988, defendant was charged with driving while impaired (DWI) in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-139.1. Prior to trial in district court, defendant moved to suppress the results of the chemical analysis performed at the time of his arrest, introducing into evidence the test record cards from which the chemical analyst observed and recorded the test results. Defendant contended that because the marking on the card for the first test indicated a \u201creading\u201d between 0.14 and 0.15 and the markings on the card for the second test indicated a \u201creading\u201d of 0.12, the test results were rendered invalid under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-139.1(b3). That subsection provides that \u201cthe test results may only be used to prove a person\u2019s particular alcohol concentration if . . . [t]he readings do not differ from each other by an alcohol concentration greater than 0.02.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 20-139.1(b3)(2) (1983) (emphases added).\nOn 22 July 1988, District Court Judge Wayne G. Kimble granted defendant\u2019s motion. The State petitioned the Superior Court, Onslow County, for writ of certiorari to the district court, seeking to reverse the suppression order. Judge George M. Fountain granted the State\u2019s petition on 22 September 1988. On 17 October 1988, Judge James M. Strickland adopted the findings and conclusions of the district court judge and upheld the suppression order.\nThe State appealed to the Court of Appeals, upon certificate of the prosecutor that such appeal was not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence of the breathalyzer results was essential to the prosecution of the case. Relying upon its analysis in State v. Tew, 95 N.C. App. 634, 383 S.E.2d 400 (1989), the Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of the chemical analysis, Judge Cozort dissenting.\nThe State appealed to this Court as of right, and its requests for writ of supersedeas and stay were allowed by this Court on 25 September 1989. The issue presented in this case is identical to that presented in State v. Tew, 326 N.C. 732, 392 S.E.2d 603 (1990), decided this date. Relying on the reasoning set out in our decision in Tew, we now reverse the Court of Appeals. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the trial division for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MEYER, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Webb\ndissenting.\nI dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in State v. Tew, 326 N.C. 732, 392 S.E.2d 603 (1990).", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice Webb" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.", "No counsel contra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARK CHARLES FREUND\nNo. 406A89\n(Filed 13 June 1990)\nAutomobiles and Other Vehicles \u00a7 126.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 breathalyzer results \u2014 difference in first and second reading \u2014 admissible\nBreathalyzer test results were admissible in a DWI prosecution even though the first and second tests were within .02 of each other only when the first test was rounded down to the nearest hundredth.\nAm Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic \u00a7\u00a7 307, 375, 377, 380.\nJustice Webb dissenting.\nAPPEAL by the State of North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 95 N.C. App. 661, 384 S.E.2d 309 (1989), affirming the judgment of Strickland, J., at the 3 October 1988 session of Superior Court, ONSLOW County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 March 1990.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nNo counsel contra." }, "file_name": "0795-01", "first_page_order": 831, "last_page_order": 833 }