 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Dawson2/18/2003
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
Christopher Cullen Dawson, ("defendant") appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of habitual driving while impaired, ("DWI"). We find no prejudicial error.
I. Background
The State's evidence tended to show that on 1 April 2000 around 8:00 p.m., Detective Edward Eubanks, along with other members of the Lenoir County Sheriff's Department, were conducting surveillance at the Ponderosa Mobile Home Park due to complaints about drug activity at one of the homes. The mobile home under surveillance was located at the end of a quarter-mile long driveway. The deputies observed individuals inside several vehicles pull up to the back door of that home, turn their lightsoff, and remain a couple of minutes before leaving. Detective Eubanks watched this pattern for over an hour, chased a car leaving the home, and eventually retrieved a large amount of controlled substances from the owners of the mobile home under surveillance. Detective Eubanks secured the home while other officers obtained a warrant to search for suspected cocaine inside the home.
At 11:30 p.m., deputies returned to the mobile home with a warrant and began searching inside the home. Some officers remained outside and watched for other vehicles approaching the home. If a vehicle approached, the officers would alert other officers searching the home, wait until the vehicle entered the property, and interview the driver and passengers in the vehicle.
Defendant's white pickup truck approached while the home was being searched. Defendant drove to the back of the home and turned off his lights. Several deputies and Detective Eubanks approached the driver's door. Eubanks asked defendant to step outside his vehicle.
As Eubanks approached defendant, he detected the odor of alcohol on defendant. Defendant's eyes were glassy, and his clothes were loosened and soiled. Defendant gave the officers permission to search his person and his vehicle. Eubanks interviewed defendant and concluded that defendant was impaired. Eubanks requested that a Highway Patrol unit be dispatched to the mobile home park.
Trooper Ronald Alphin of the North Carolina Highway Patrol arrived on the scene ten to fifteen minutes later. Alphin talkedwith defendant and immediately noticed the odor of alcohol on defendant's breath. Alphin knew defendant from high school and asked defendant whether he had consumed alcohol. Defendant answered affirmatively and stated that he had drunk two to three beers at 4:30 p.m. Defendant informed Alphin that he had recently been injured after a concrete wire had struck his eye, and that he was suffering from a sinus infection. Alphin asked defendant to sit on the passenger seat of his patrol vehicle and continued their conversation. Based upon his observations and information obtained, Alphin arrested defendant for DWI.
Alphin took defendant to the Intoxilyzer room just after 1:00 a.m. on 2 April 2000. Alphin called in a request for a certified Intoxilyzer operator to meet him at the Intoxilyzer room. Alphin asked defendant to perform the one-legged stand psycho-physical test. Defendant started the test before he was instructed to do so, sped up the count, and put his leg down before completing the test.
Trooper Michael Turner, a certified che
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|