State v. Green
209 N.C. App. 669
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Incident occurred 14 December 2006; 8:00 p.m. SUV entered Lynn Rd/Glendower Rd intersection, nearly hit another vehicle, causing crash into a street sign; SUV driver interacted with witness and appeared impaired.
- Officer Larsen detected odor of alcohol; defendant admitted drinking wine and was taken into custody for impaired driving; BAC test at Wake County Detention Center showed 0.19 g/100 ml.
- Trial in district court resulted in conviction for impaired driving; judgment entered 4 March 2008; defendant appealed to superior court.
- Judge Fox presided the 22 April 2009 superior court trial; Paul Glover, state expert, testified on breath alcohol testing, Intoxilyzer 5000, and retrograde extrapolation of BAC.
- Glover testified to calculate defendant’s BAC at 8:00 p.m. using 11:28 p.m. BAC and various assumptions; defendant was found guilty of driving while impaired; sentenced to 120 days (suspended), probation, and other conditions.
- Appellate issues concern admissibility of Glover’s expert testimony, his opinion on post-driving consumption and BAC, and an aggravating factor under sentencing rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion admitting expert testimony on pharmacology and physiology. | Glover is qualified by extensive experience. | Glover’s testimony was not sufficiently reliable. | No abuse; proper under Rule 702 and Howerton three-step test. |
| Whether Glover could testify on defendant’s post-driving alcohol consumption. | Post-driving consumption impacts BAC calculations. | Testimony invades credibility determinations. | Testimony admissible; aids jurors in BAC assessment, not credibility. |
| Whether Glover’s BAC calculations based on assumptions were permissible. | Assumptions are acceptable data inputs under Rule 703. | Assumptions may render testimony unreliable. | Admissible; extrapolation properly relies on recognized inputs and reliability standards. |
| Whether the court correctly found an aggravating factor for sentencing without violating Blakely. | Aggravators were properly found. | Blakely concerns enhanced punishment based on facts not admitted or found by jury. | Blakely not implicated; lawful within section 20-179 guidelines; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513 (1995) (preliminary reliability for expert testimony; Daubert/Goode framework referenced)
- Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (2004) (three-step inquiry for admissibility of expert testimony)
- State v. Taylor, 165 N.C.App. 750 (2004) (discretion in admitting expert testimony; helpful to jury)
- Corriher v. State, 184 N.C.App. 168 (2007) (reliability factors for expert testimony; weight vs. admissibility)
- Cook v. State, 362 N.C. 285 (2008) (retrograde extrapolation admissibility; recognized methodology)
- State v. Davis, 106 N.C.App. 596 (1992) (requirement that expert be better qualified than jury; helpfulness to jury)
- State v. Borges, 183 N.C.App. 240 (2007) (retrograde extrapolation challenges; admissibility context)