Case Title: State v. Helms

Citation: 348 N.C. 578

Docket Number: 468PA97

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1998-07-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 468PA97
FILED: 9 JULY 1998
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
BOBBY NEAL HELMS
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of
a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 375,
490 S.E.2d 565 (1997), finding harmless error and affirming
judgment entered by Greeson, Jr., J., on 24 April 1996 in
Superior Court, Union County.  Heard in the Supreme Court 9 March
1998.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Isaac T. Avery,
III, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-
appellant and -appellee.
Shawna Davis Collins for defendant-appellant and
-appellee.
FRYE, Justice.
Defendant appealed his conviction of driving while
impaired in violation of N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1.  He contended that
the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the results of a
horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test without the establishment of
a proper foundation.  Defendant contended that the HGN test is a
scientific test requiring expert testimony as to its reliability. 
The Court of Appeals agreed that the State failed to lay a proper
foundation at trial for admission of the HGN test results. 
Nevertheless, the panel concluded that the error was harmless and
upheld defendant’s conviction.  We agree with the Court of
-2-
Appeals on the admissibility of the HGN test results but reverse
on the issue of harmless error.
The State’s evidence adduced at trial tended to show
the following:  Officer E.P. Bradley (Bradley) had stopped at an
intersection in Monroe, North Carolina, at approximately 4:00
a.m. on 30 December 1995 when defendant drove past.  Bradley
noticed the tail lights of defendant’s automobile were not
operating and, while following the vehicle, observed it weave
from the left side of its lane of travel to the right, striking
the curb with the right front tire.  Bradley activated his blue
light, and defendant’s automobile made a wide right turn onto a
side street, veering into the opposite lane before coming to a
stop.
Bradley approached the vehicle and immediately noticed
a strong odor of alcohol as defendant rolled down the driver’s
side window.  Bradley requested that defendant produce his
driver’s license, and the latter indicated “he didn’t have any
license.”  Bradley noted defendant’s speech was “mumbled” and
asked him to exit his vehicle.  As defendant did so, he was
unsteady on his feet.  Bradley further observed defendant’s eyes
were bloodshot, his shirt tail was hanging out, and his clothes
were soiled.  Later, as defendant sat in the patrol car, Bradley
noted a strong odor of alcohol emanating from defendant.
Thereafter, Bradley administered an HGN test.  Bradley
directed defendant to focus upon a pen held twelve to fifteen
inches from defendant’s face as Bradley slowly moved the pen out
of defendant’s field of vision towards the latter’s ear.  Bradley
-3-
testified, over strenuous objections by defendant, that twitching
of defendant’s eyes during administration of the test would be
associated with alcohol intoxication.  On redirect examination,
Bradley stated he had completed a forty hour training class
dealing with the HGN test.
Based upon the results of the HGN test and his
observations concerning defendant’s operation of his vehicle and
the odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath, Bradley formed the
opinion that defendant had consumed a sufficient quantity of
alcohol so as to have impaired his mental and physical abilities. 
Bradley then placed defendant under arrest and transported him to
the county jail, where defendant refused administration of an
intoxilyzer test.  At the county jail Bradley administered other
sobriety measuring tests known as the one-legged stand and the
walk-and-turn test.  Defendant performed poorly on both tests.
Defendant presented no evidence at trial.  The jury
returned a verdict of guilty of driving while impaired.
Following his conviction, defendant was sentenced to a
term of two years imprisonment based upon the presence of
aggravating circumstances.  Defendant appealed to the Court of
Appeals contending that Bradley’s testimony concerning the HGN
test was inadmissible.  Defendant contended that the HGN test is
a scientific test and thus testimony as to HGN test results are
admissible only following a proper foundation pursuant to
N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702.  Because the State failed to lay such
a foundation, defendant asserts, the HGN test results were
improperly admitted into evidence.
-4-
The Court of Appeals held that Bradley’s testimony
regarding the HGN test results was inadmissible and declined to
take judicial notice of the validity of the test.  Though it
found the admission of the HGN test results into evidence
improper, the court found that the remaining testimony at trial
overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt of driving while
impaired.  Thus, it concluded, the error was harmless.
This Court has not previously addressed the
admissibility of HGN evidence.  In now resolving this matter we
look first to other jurisdictions which have considered the
issue.  Some courts have held that the results of HGN tests are
admissible without evidentiary foundation.  They reason that the
HGN test is simply another field sobriety test, such as the
finger-to-nose, sway, and walk-and-turn test, admitted as
evidence of intoxication.  Whitson v. State, 314 Ark. 458, 863
S.W.2d 794 (1993); State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154 (Iowa 1990);
Fargo v. McLaughlin, 512 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1994); State v. Nagel,
30 Ohio App.3d 80, 506 N.E.2d 285 (1986) and State v. Sullivan,
310 S.C. 311, 426 S.E.2d 766 (1993).  The Ohio Court of Appeals,
for example, noted that
the gaze nystagmus test, as do the other
commonly used field sobriety tests, requires
only the personal observation of the officer
administering it.  It is objective in nature
and does not require expert interpretation.
. . . .
It should be remembered that the [HGN]
test was one of a number of field sobriety
tests administered by the officer to assist
him in assessing [defendant’s] physical
condition.  Taken together, they were
-5-
strongly suggestive of intoxication.  It does
not require an expert to make such objective
determinations.
Nagel, 30 Ohio App.3d 80, 80-81, 506 N.E.2d 285, 286.
A majority of those jurisdictions addressing the
admissibility of HGN evidence have concluded the HGN test is a
scientific test requiring a proper foundation to be admissible.  
Ballard v. State, 1998 WL 150774 (Ala. App.); State v. Superior
Court In and For Cochise County, 149 Ariz. 269, 718 P.2d 171
(1986); State v. Meador, 674 So.2d 826 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.),
review denied, 686 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1996); Commonwealth v. Sands,
424 Mass. 184, 675 N.E.2d 370 (1997); Emerson v. State, 880
S.W.2d 759 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 931, 130 L.
Ed. 2d 284 (1994).  Nystagmus has been defined as a physiological
condition that involves
an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball
which may be horizontal, vertical or rotary. 
An inability of the eyes to maintain visual
fixation as they are turned from side to side
(in other words jerking or bouncing) is known
as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN.
Leahy, 8 Cal.4th at 592, 882 P.2d at 323 (citations omitted). 
The courts which hold that HGN tests are scientific tests note
that the HGN test is based on an underlying scientific assumption
that a strong correlation exists between intoxication and
nystagmus.  Because that assumption is not within the common
experience of jurors, before HGN evidence may be heard by a jury
there must be testimony as to the techniques used by the police
officer and the officer’s qualifications to administer the test.
-6-
A subset of those courts which hold that HGN tests are
scientific in nature, also hold that expert testimony is required
to establish that the scientific principles upon which the HGN
test is based are generally accepted by the scientific community. 
According to these cases, unless a police officer has special
training or adequate knowledge qualifying him as an expert to
explain the correlation between intoxication and nystagmus, his
testimony is not adequate foundation for the admission of HGN
test results.  State v. Cissne, 72 Wash.App. 677, 865 P.2d 564,
review denied, 877 P.2d 1288 (1994); Hulse v. State, 1998 WL
239615 (Mont.); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587, 882 P.2d 321
(1994); Commonwealth v. Miller, 367 Pa.Super. 359, 532 A.2d 1186
(1987); State v. Ruthardt, 680 A.2d 349 (Del. 1996); Schultz v.
State, 106 Md.App. 145, 664 A.2d 60 (1995).
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals held, in
accord with the majority view, that the HGN test does not measure
behavior a lay person would commonly associate with intoxication
but rather represents specialized knowledge that must be
presented to the jury by a qualified expert.  We agree.  Once the
expert testifies as to the relationship between HGN test results
and intoxication, he or she is then subject to cross-examination
to test the validity and reliability of the HGN test. 
Appropriate questions on cross-examination might be whether eye
twitching or nystagmus could also be caused by nervousness,
certain diseases, lack of sleep, or certain medications rather
than alcohol intoxication.  See Schultz, 106 Md.App. at 180-81,
-7-
664 A.2d at 77 (listing thirty-eight causes of nystagmus other
than alcohol intoxication).
Under the North Carolina Rules of Evidence, “new
scientific method[s] of proof [are] admissible at trial if the
method is sufficiently reliable.”  State v. Pennington, 327 N.C.
89, 98, 393 S.E.2d 847, 852 (1990).  This Court has stated that
"in general, when no specific precedent exists, scientifically
accepted reliability justifies admission of the testimony of
qualified witnesses, and such reliability may be found either by
judicial notice or from the testimony of scientists who are
expert in the subject matter, or by a combination of the two." 
State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 148, 322 S.E.2d 370, 381 (quoting
1 Henry Brandis, Jr., Brandis on North Carolina Evidence § 86, at
323 (2d ed. 1982)).  We find nothing in the record of the case
before us to indicate that the trial court took judicial notice
of the reliability of the HGN test.  Further, the State presented
no evidence and the court conducted no inquiry at trial regarding
the reliability of the HGN test.  Until there is sufficient
scientifically reliable evidence as to the correlation between
intoxication and nystagmus, it is improper to permit a lay person
to testify as to the meaning of HGN test results.  Accordingly,
the admission of Bradley’s testimony regarding the results of the
HGN test administered to defendant was error.
Notwithstanding its finding that the admission of the
HGN test results was improper, the Court of Appeals found that
the receipt of the evidence was harmless error because the
remaining evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly established
-8-
defendant’s guilt of the crime of driving while impaired.  The
remaining evidence against defendant presented by the State is as
follows:  (1) Bradley testified that defendant crossed the center
line and hit the right curb in his vehicle when he pulled back
into his lane; (2) Bradley noticed a strong odor of alcohol
coming from the car when he stopped defendant; (3) defendant was
unsteady on his feet; (4) defendant’s eyes were red and hazy and
his clothes were disheveled; and (5) there was an odor of alcohol
coming from defendant’s breath.  The following additional
evidence was brought out on cross-examination:  (1) Bradley
admitted that the lay out of Hill Street requires a wide turn and
that no dividing line exists on the street; (2)  Bradley admitted
that alcohol itself has no odor but the flavorings of the
beverage cause it to smell like an alcoholic beverage; (3) there
was no evidence in the record that defendant had been drinking an
alcoholic beverage and not a non-alcoholic beverage with similar
flavorings; (4) there are many different reasons which could
cause a person’s eyes to be red other than the use of alcohol;
and (5) Bradley could not say for sure that defendant’s speech
was abnormal on the night in question because he had never heard
defendant speak before.
We disagree that the evidence presented by the State at
trial overwhelmingly established defendant’s guilt.  The
admission of the HGN test results was, therefore, not harmless
error.  N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) (1988) requires that defendant
must show that had the error in question not been committed, a
reasonable possibility exists that a different result would have
-9-
been reached at trial.  The additional evidence brought out
during defense counsel’s cross-examination of Bradley supports a
reasonable possibility that the jury could have reached a
different verdict.  We conclude that in light of the heightened
credence juries tend to give scientific evidence, had evidence of
the HGN test results not been erroneously admitted a reasonable
possibility exists of a different outcome at trial.
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, we
reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.