213 N.C. App. 75
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Norton was indicted on multiple counts including driving while impaired and felonious fleeing to elude arrest after a high-speed, dangerous chase with Asheville police on 15 September 2009.
- Evidence at trial showed Norton drove on the wrong side of the road, ran red lights, collided with vehicles, fled from officers, and exhibited erratic, dangerous behavior.
- After a later confrontation, Norton was arrested; a blood test showed alcohol concentration of 0.03 g/100 mL and presence of cocaine and a cocaine metabolite.
- The jury acquitted some counts and deadlocked on others, ultimately convicting Norton of several offenses and sentencing him to terms ranging from days to over a year.
- Norton challenged the driving while impaired conviction as legally insufficient and challenged the admissibility of a forensic toxicologist’s testimony, arguing trial errors.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the sufficiency of the driving while impaired evidence and applied plain error review to the expert testimony issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the driving while impaired evidence | Norton contends evidence failed to show impairment beyond mere consumption. | State argues faulty driving plus alcohol and cocaine evidence suffices to establish impairment. | Evidence supports impairment; no error in submission. |
| Admissibility of expert toxicologist testimony under Rule 702 | Testimony exceeded witness’s expertise and should be excluded. | Expert was qualified and testimony aided the trier of fact. | No plain error; trial fair; admissibility within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67 (1993) (surveillance of standard for legal sufficiency review)
- State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62 (1982) (sufficiency standard; substantial evidence review)
- State v. Franklin, 327 N.C. 162 (1990) (definition of substantial evidence)
- State v. Coffey, 189 N.C. App. 382 (2008) (impaired driving evidence; combination of impairment factors)
- State v. Goode, 341 N.C. 513 (1995) (Rule 702 expert qualification and admissibility)
- State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565 (1969) (implicit ruling on expert qualification when no objection raised)
- State v. Hough, 229 N.C. 532 (1948) (impairment proof via contemporaneous observation)
- State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 (1983) (plain error and its cautious application)