State v. Mullis

ERWIN, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence testimony of the breathalyzer operator when the proper foundation had not been laid by showing what permit he held and who issued it.

G.S. 20-139.1(b) reads:

“Chemical analyses of the person’s breath or blood, to be considered valid under the provisions of this section, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Commission for Health Services and by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Department of Human Resources for this purpose. The Department of Human Resources is…