State v. MungÂ
16-470
| N.C. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2016Background
- At ~1:27 a.m. during a DWI checkpoint, Officer Crum stopped Kap Mung, observed signs of intoxication (bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, open 24-oz container) and conducted FSTs and Alco-Sensor breath tests, which indicated alcohol use.
- Officer Crum arrested Mung for DWI and transported him to the BATmobile for a chemical breath analysis; Mung’s breath test read .13.
- In the BATmobile, Crum read Mung the implied-consent warnings orally in English, provided a written copy, and posted the warnings in English and Spanish on the wall; Mung followed instructions and never asked for an interpreter or said he did not understand.
- Mung argued at hearing and on appeal that English is not his first language (from Burma) and that Crum failed to effectually inform him of his § 20-16.2(a) rights because no Burmese interpreter was provided, so the chemical test results should be suppressed.
- The trial court denied Mung’s suppression motion; Mung entered an Alford plea reserving appeal of the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether chemical-analysis results are inadmissible when the motorist may not understand orally delivered § 20-16.2(a) warnings | State: § 20-16.2(a) warnings were given (oral English + written); compliance satisfied statute, so results admissible | Mung: Warnings were ineffective because he does not speak English and no Burmese interpreter was provided, so results must be suppressed | Court: Admission depends on whether the statutory disclosures were given, not on the defendant’s subjective comprehension; no error in admitting results |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scruggs, 209 N.C. App. 725 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings: findings tested for competent evidence; conclusions of law reviewed de novo)
- Seders v. Powell, 298 N.C. 453 (N.C. 1979) (purpose of implied-consent statute: gather scientific evidence and protect against erroneous license deprivation)
- State v. Gilbert, 85 N.C. App. 594 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987) (failure to advise of § 20-16.2 rights renders chemical test inadmissible)
- State v. Martinez, 781 S.E.2d 346 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016) (§ 20-16.2 requires oral and written disclosure, but admissibility is not conditioned on the defendant’s subjective understanding of the disclosure)