Legal Opinion

State v. Webb

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 3, 1965No. 335PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

A qualified expert may testify as to the effect of certain percentages of alcohol in the blood stream of human beings provided the blood sample analyzed was timely taken, properly traced, and identified. State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E. 2d 899. Mr. Lutz’s qualifications were stipulated. His testimony, quoted in the statement of facts, went to the jury on redirect examination without objection. Substantially identical testimony was held to have been properly admitted in State v. Dixon, 256 N.C. 698, 124 S.E. 2d 821; State v. Hart, 256 N.C. 645, 124 S.E. 2d 816; State v. Moore, 245 N.C.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. State v. WillardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. State v. . YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
  4. State v. CephusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. State v. DowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. InglandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. State v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. State v. BestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. State v. HuntSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  5. State v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API