Opinion ID: 1298259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: breathalyzer results: defendant's challenge

Text: The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to submit the 0.10 aspect of G.S. 20-138.1 to the jury when the defendant's test results were 0.10 and the machine varies between 0.09 and 0.10 percent when the breathalyzer operator conducts the simulator tests. The defendant specifically excepted to the following charges given by the judge to the jury: I would charge you that for you to find the defendant guilty of driving a vehicle on the highways of this State while impaired the State of North Carolina must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant was driving a 1973 Lincoln. Second, that she was driving that 1973 Lincoln upon a highway within this State, and I would say to you that East Pennsylvania Avenue in Southern Pines is a highway within this State. And third, that at the time the defendant was driving that `73 Lincoln she was either one, under the influence of an impairing substance; or, two, she was driving after having consumed sufficient quantity of alcohol that she had at any relevant time after driving an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. .... Now, the State also satisfies this third element of this offense if it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was driving a vehicle on the highways of this State after having consumed sufficient alcohol that she had at any relevant time after driving an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. The crux of defendant's argument originates with the testimony of Officer Thornton, the breathalyzer operator. Officer Thornton testified that he had been certified by the State to perform chemical analyses of the breath. He further testified that while conducting the breathalyzer tests on the defendant he complied with the Department of Human Resources' Regulations. [2] As part of these operational procedures, the operator is required to analyze a simulated breath sample prior to taking and analyzing the defendant's actual breath sample. The purpose of this procedure is to verify the accuracy of the machine. It is in the nature of a control test. To perform the simulator testing, the operator connects to the breathalyzer a jar containing a known solution of 0.10 percent alcohol. [3] The operator then blows into the mouthpiece, introducing a sample of air from the simulator solution into the machine. [4] If the machine yields the expected result of 0.10 percent then it is operating properly, since the control sample of air is being measured consistently with a prepared solution equal to 0.10 BAC. The regulations do allow for an instrumental deviation of 0.01 percent below the 0.10 expected reading. However, a deviation above the 0.10 percent expected reading is not permitted. See note 4, supra. Officer Thornton testified that during the simulator test he obtained the result of 0.09, a reading on the low side. During cross examination, the defendant's attorney questioned the operator as follows: Q. It's true, is it not, Mr. Thornton, the machine varies when you run the simulator test? A. Yes, sir. Q. What does it vary between? .... A. There is a tolerance. Q. What is the tolerance? A. Point 01. Q. To what? A. When I perform the test and I get results between .09 and .10 the instrument is working accurate. Q. So there is a ten per cent margin of error. A. Point 01. Q. Point 01 out of what? A. Between .09 and .10. Q. So if the machine registers anywhere between .09 and .10 for the simulator solution then you go ahead and run the test. A. Yes, sir. And during re-direct examination, Officer Thornton testified: Q. Officer Thornton, you testified thatMr. Cunningham asked you and you testified that the machine can be between .09 and .10 on the simulator and it's operating according to the guidelines, and you can run the Breathalyzer on certain subjects, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. What happens if it's over .10? A. You cannot use the instrument. Q. Why is that? A. It's not an accurate or valid test. The instrument is not working properly. Q. And when you ran the simulator on Miss Shuping what were the test results? A. The simulator test results? Q. Yes. A. .09. Q. Is that within the tolerance, the guidelines set by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services? A. Yes, Sir. Defendant contends, based on this testimony, that there is a 0.01 margin of error in the breathalyzer instrument. Therefore, it is contended defendant's BAC could have been 0.09, since her breathalyzer reading was 0.10 and the breathalyzer varies up and down by 0.01. Basically, defendant argues that the 0.01 instrumental margin of tolerance allowed during simulator testing equates to a 0.01 margin of error during actual testing of the defendant's breath. This is simply not the case. The 0.01 deviation allowance below the expected reading of 0.10 during simulation procedures is a safeguard to insure that when the actual test is subsequently run, any possible error during actual testing is in favor of defendant. Stated differently, when the machine yields a 0.10 during simulation testing, the machine is operating accurately. A subsequent reading of the defendant's breath will then render a reading that is reliable. Furthermore, when the machine yields a 0.09 during simulation testing, within the allowable margin of tolerance, that means it is testing on the low side. Thus, when a subsequent test is actually conducted on defendant, the reading from the machine is lower than the actual BAC. Thus, when defendant in this case blew a 0.10 after the machine had yielded a 0.09 during the simulation test, her actual BAC could have been a 0.11 rather than a 0.10. Consequently, any error, if error there be, was fully in favor of defendant. Defense counsel cites cases from sister states as persuasive authority to support his argument that readings from a breath-testing machine, in order to be competent evidence, must yield results outside of the 0.01 margin of error inherent in the testing process. Defendant contends that these cases recognize an inherent deviation in the machine. Essentially, defendant maintains that the breathalyzer results must be 0.11 in order to prove a BAC of 0.10. Defendant's argument is rejected. An analysis of the cases cited by defendant reveals that they are inapposite to the case sub judice. Two of these cases, State v. Bjornsen, 201 Neb. 709, 271 N.W.2d 839 (1978) and People v. Campos, 138 Cal. App.3d Supp. 1, 188 Cal.Rptr. 366 (Super. Ct.1982), deal with the results of blood tests, not breath tests. [5] So instead, what these cases address is the error inherent in the blood-testing process, not the breath-testing machine involved in this case. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this authority. Defendant also cites State v. Boehmer, 1 Haw.App. 44, 613 P.2d 916 (1980) (per curiam). It is true that in Boehmer the court concluded that the breathalyzer machine was subject to a margin of error. The court held that the results of the breathalyzer test must reflect a percent that is outside of any error inherent in the testing process. However, we are not persuaded by the court's rationale in Boehmer, primarily because the court relied exclusively upon Bjornsen, which dealt with blood, not breath, tests. Additionally, the Boehmer opinion does not make reference to any facts that indicate whether the breathalyzer operator was required to, or did indeed, verify the accuracy of the machine by conducting a simulator test prior to taking a sample of the defendant's breath. Courts in several states have reviewed the accuracy and reliability of breath-testing devices, including the Breathalyzer Models 900 and 900A, and have determined them to be reliable scientific instruments. Romano v. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 474 A.2d 1 (1984); Heddan v. Dirkswager, 336 N.W.2d 54 (Minn.1983); People v. Tilley, 120 Misc.2d 1040, 466 N.Y.S.2d 983 (Co.Ct. 1983); State v. Keller, 36 Wash.App. 110, 672 P.2d 412 (1983); State v. Rucker, 297 A.2d 400 (Del.Super.Ct.1972). In conclusion, we hold that the trial court correctly determined that the breathalyzer operator complied with the Department of Human Resources Regulations and the statutory provisions before admitting the chemical analysis of the defendant's breath into evidence pursuant to 20-139.1(a) and (b). State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E.2d 706, reh'g denied, 285 N.C. 597 (1973). Once it is determined that the chemical analysis of the defendant's breath was valid, then a reading of 0.10 constitutes reliable evidence and is sufficient to satisfy the State's burden of proof as to this element of the offense of DWI. Therefore, the trial judge correctly instructed the jury regarding the 0.10 per se offense of DWI. NO ERROR.