Shortly after I published last week’s post on State v. Babich, an astute reader asked about the court’s harmless error analysis. How, he inquired, could the improper admission of expert testimony that the defendant had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 be harmless error? Did the jury’s verdict indicate that it found the defendant guilty only under the “under the influence” prong of impairment rather than under the “alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more” prong? To answer these questions, I had to dig into the record on appeal and provide a bit of background on the requirement for jury unanimity in DWI cases. I thought others might be interested in my response.
UNC School of Government
Knapp-Sanders Building
Campus Box 3330 UNC - Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3330
T: 919.966.5381 | F: 919.962.0654 © 2023 Copyright,
North Carolina Criminal Law
at the School of Government with the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
at the School of Government with the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill