 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ford6/1/2004
impairing substance other than alcohol.'" Bartlett, 130 N.C. App. at 82, 502 S.E.2d at 55 (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.3 (2003)). The only other use of the results is not as substantiative evidence, but for "determin if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the [driver] has committed an implied-consent offense under G.S. 20-16.2." Id. "Except as provided in this subsection, the results of an alcohol screening test may not be admitted in evidence in any court or administrative proceeding." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-16.3(d) (emphasis added). See Powers v. Powers, 130 N.C. App. 37, 44-45, 502 S.E.2d 398, 403-04, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 530, 526 S.E.2d 180 (1998) (Admission of the alco-sensor results was error as evidence for establishing findings of abuse and neglect.).
In the case before us, there is no contention that the alco-sensor test results were admitted to show that Ms. Ford was impaired by some substance other than alcohol. In fact, the tests were used to show that alcohol was in fact the cause of her impairment, and that she was impaired. Thus, the test results at this contempt hearing were clearly not admissible and the court erred when considering them. Bartlett, 130 N.C. App. at 85, 502 S.E.2d at 403. Therefore, in the event of any rehearing on the issue of contempt, the results of this test shall not be admissible.
For the reasons stated herein, we Reverse.
Judges HUNTER and LEVINSON concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|