 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bruton4/5/2005
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Defendant Cabarrus Lyndale Bruton appeals from his convictions for driving while impaired ("DWI"), reckless driving, and driving with a revoked license, arguing that the trial court committed plain error when it allowed the State to present evidence of a prior civil license revocation (resulting from a DWI) that had expired. Because we believe that the jury would likely have reached the same verdict even in the absence of the evidence, we hold defendant received a trial free from prejudicial error.
The State's evidence tended to show that in the early morning hours of 16 June 2002, Kinston police officer Brooks Bennett was conducting surveillance in an unmarked car in an area plagued with break-ins and armed robberies. Between 1:00 a.m. and 2:30 a.m., heobserved defendant's car drive slowly past the convenience store he was watching on four occasions, alternately traveling east and west.
After defendant passed by the fourth time, Bennett began to follow him. Bennett radioed for uniformed officers to assist him in stopping defendant's vehicle. After turning right onto another road, defendant accelerated to a speed "well in excess of 55 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone." After making two more turns, defendant abruptly stopped his car in the middle of the road for 15 to 20 seconds, then accelerated rapidly again. He continued to make turns while running three stop signs. After executing a wide turn, defendant's car "went left of center and actually into the other lane."
A marked patrol car, with its blue lights activated, blocked defendant's lane of travel, and defendant stopped his car. Bennett approached defendant's vehicle with uniformed officer Preston Ellis. Defendant was "very belligerent, very loud, very agitated and . . . was demanding to know why he was stopped." Bennett detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from defendant; observed that his eyes were red, glassy, and watery; and determined that defendant "appeared to have been impaired by alcoholic beverage." Bennett turned the investigation over to Ellis and returned to his surveillance post.
Ellis, like Bennett, noted a very strong odor of alcohol about defendant's person and described his eyes as red and glassy. Ellis testified that it was "very obvious to anyone that could see[defendant] that he seemed to be impaired." Defendant denied that he had been drinking, but refused to perform any field sobriety tests. Based upon their interaction, Ellis believed that defendant "had consumed enough of an impairing substance to appreciably impair his mental and physical capacities" and placed him under arrest. While transporting defendant to the police station, Ellis had to roll down the windows to reduce the odor of alcohol in his car.
They arrived at the police station at approximately 2:45 a.m. After a 15-minute observation period, Ellis advised defendant of his rights and attempted to administer an Intoxilyzer test. Defendant refused to sign the rights form or submit to the test. As Ellis was completing his paperwork, defendant began complaining of chest pains. Ellis contacted E.M.S. When E.M.S. personnel arrived, defendant collapsed onto the floor. He was transported to Lenoir Memorial Hospital and admitted for observation.
William H. Wilkins, Senior Medical Technologist at the hospital's hematology lab, testified that a blood sample taken from defendant in the course of his treatment registered 20
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|