Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966

State v. Stauffer

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided January 14, 1966 · Per Curiam

145 S.E.2d 917; 266 N.C. 358; 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1349 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Ortega (Wash. 2013)
Connelly v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Neb. Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Jordan (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Kupetz (N.H. 1975)
State v. Dail (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)
State v. Bravo Ortega (Wash. 2013)
Arndt v. Department of Motor Vehicles (Neb. 2005)
State v. RONALD LEE ROACH (N.C. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Roberts (Neb. 2001)
State v. Spencer (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
Oldham v. Miller (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Green (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

G.S. 20-139.1 (a) provides that in any criminal action arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the amount of alcohol in the person’s blood at the time alleged, as shown by chemical analysis of the person’s breath, shall be admissible in evidence. However, paragraph (b) of this section states expressly, “[I]n no case shall the arresting officer or officers administer such test.”

The purpose of this limitation in the statute is to assure that the test will be fairly and impartially made. An officer, who is present at the scene of the arrest for the purpose of assisting in it, if necessary, is an “arresting officer” within the meaning of this statute even though a different officer actually places his hand upon the defendant and informs him that he is under arrest.

Officer McIntosh was, therefore, forbidden by the statute to make the Breathalyzer test of the defendant and it was error to permit him to testify as to the result of the test and as to his opinion based thereon. This was prejudicial to the defendant notwithstanding the presence in the record of other evidence which, considered alone, would have been sufficient to support the verdict.

New trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.