# State v. Warf

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · October 25, 1972 · 16 N.C. App. 431

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1202103

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. James Calvin Warf
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 25, 1972
- **Citations:** 16 N.C. App. 431; 192 S.E.2d 37; 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1729
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Britt
- **Judges:** Britt, Mallard, Brock
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1202103

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where the State fails to carry its burden of showing that a breathalyzer test was properly administered, evidence of that test must be suppressed

## Opinion text

BRITT, Judge.
Defendant’s assignments of error all question the admissibility into evidence, over defendant’s objection, of the results of a breathalyzer test given to defendant when there was no evidence presented by the State that (1) the test was administered according to methods approved by the State Board of Health and that (2) the test was administered by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the State Board of Health for that purpose, as required by G.S. 20-139.1 (b). The assignments of error are well taken.
The decisions of this court in
State v. Caviness,
7 N.C. App. 541 , 173 S.E. 2d 12 (1970),
State v. Powell,
10 N.C. App. 726 ,
*432
179 S.E. 2d 785 , affirmed 279 N.C. 608 , 184 S.E. 2d 243 (1971), and
State v. Chavis,
15 N.C. App. 566 , 190 S.E. 2d 374 (1972) are controlling here. In
Caviness
a new trial was ordered for failure of the State to meet either requirement of G.S. 20-139.1 (b). In
Powell
we held that both requirements must be complied with and further that the State may prove compliance in any proper and acceptable manner. In
Chavis
we pointed out that although the manner of proof is left up to the State, the failure to offer any proof is not sanctioned by the courts and the defendant was granted a new trial because “such failure resulted in clear and manifest error prejudicial to defendant.”
Since the record in the instant case fails to reveal any proof to satisfy the statutory requirements, for the reasons set forth in the above cited cases, defendant is awarded a
New trial.
Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1202103. Public record. Not legal advice.