As state crime lab backlogs increase, it takes longer and longer for blood drawn in connection with impaired driving cases to be tested. In some of these cases, the State may opt to proceed to trial without the results. And sometimes defendants are eager to plead guilty before such blood is tested. A defendant who believes that her alcohol concentration was 0.15 or more may determine that even without the blood test results, there is an abundance of evidence to establish her guilt. And, if by pleading guilty, the defendant can avoid having the blood tested, then she also can avoid the requirement that she have ignition interlock installed on all of her vehicles for a year following the restoration of her driver’s license. A few questions arise in the context of such pleas. May a judge accept such a plea knowing that the blood has not yet been tested? Yes. G.S. 20-139.1(e2) (discussed here) requires that an implied consent case in district court “be continued until the analyst can be present.” For this requirement to apply, however, the State must seek a continuance. Moreover, G.S. 20-139.1(e2) primarily addresses circumstances in which a chemical analyst’s affidavit may be admitted into evidence under G.S. 20-139.1(e1). The continuance requirement thus applies in circumstances in which the analysis already has been performed. The statute does not require continuance so that an analysis may be performed. May a district attorney agree not to seek a continuance and call such a case for arraignment and trial [...]
Faculty Coordinators
