Bill Summaries: H 357 Chemical Analysis Reports/District Court

Printer-friendly: Click to view
  • Summary date: Jun 9 2016 - View Summary


  • Summary date: May 24 2016 - View Summary

    Senate amendment makes the following changes to the 3rd edition.

    Amends Section 1 introductory language, correcting a statutory reference.

    Amends the effective date clause, providing that the act is effective October 1, 2016, applying to trials commencing on or after that date (previously, applied to trials on or after that date). 

  • Summary date: May 23 2016 - View Summary

    Senate committee substitute makes the following changes to the 2nd edition. Deletes the content of the previous edition and replaces it with the following.

    Amends the act's short and long titles.

    Amends GS 20-139.1, which sets out processes and procedures concerning the admissibility and use of chemical analysis test results in implied-consent offenses, now providing in subsection (c1) Admissibility, subsection (c3), Procedure for Establishing Chain of Custody Without Calling Unnecessary Witnesses, and subsection (e2), concerning the use of a chemical analyst's affivadit in District Court, an additional notice requirement that the State must notify the defendant no later than 15 business days after receiving the chemical analysis document (report, statement, or affidavit) and at least 15 days before the proceeding of its intent to introduce the chemical analysis document into evidence. The State must also provide a copy of the document to the defendant (previously, only required the State to give notice of intent and a copy of the document  at least 15 business days before the proceeding at which the document would be used; now requires both). Additionally, in these same subsections, new language is added to provide that if the proceeding at which the chemical analysis document would be introduced into evidence is continued, then any notice provided by the State, the written objection filed by the defendant, or the failure to do so remains effective at a subsequent calendaring of that proceeding.  Further amends subsection (e2), concerning the defendant's failure to timely file an objection to the introduction of a chemical analyst's affidavit in district court, which is considered a waiver of right to object to the admissibility of the affidavit, adding a provision that requires when such waivers occur, then the affidavit is admitted into evidence but without the analyst's testimony. Makes conforming changes as well as clarifying changes concerning reference to "reports," "affidavits," and "statements."

    Effective October 1, 2016, applying to trials on or after that date.

  • Summary date: Apr 15 2015 - View Summary

    House committee substitute to the 1st edition makes the following changes.

    Amends proposed GS 8-58.21 as follows. Adds that the statute is notwithstanding GS 20-139.1, Procedures governing chemical analyses; admissibility; evidentiary provisions; controlled-drinking programs.

    Adds the requirement that if the defendant wants the analyst present and the analyst is employed out of state, that the defendant give the State written notice within five days of receiving the notice and report from the District Attorney, upon which the State must produce the witness. 

    Adds that the State retains the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that an analyst may be declared a hostile witness for direct examination if an analyst testifies pursuant to a subpoena issued by the defendant.

  • Summary date: Mar 25 2015 - View Summary

    Enacts new GS 8-58.21, Toxicology analysis admissible as evidence in criminal prosecution in district court, providing that in any criminal prosecution in district court a laboratory report of a written toxicology analysis that states the results and is signed and sworn to by the person performing the analysis can be admissible in evidence without the testimony of the analyst who prepared the report, if certain specified criteria are satisfied, including that the analysis complies with GS 8-58.20(b), concerning lab accreditation, and that the conducting analyst complies with the provisions of GS 8-58.20(c) concerning affidavit requirements.

    Provides that any defendant that wants to contest the results of the analysis that has been submitted into evidence retains the right to subpoena the person who performed the analysis in order to testify in the criminal prosecution in district court. If the analyst fails to testify and the case is not continued for the analyst to do so, the results of the analysis are inadmissible at trial in the district court.  Provides that nothing in this section can be construed as an abrogation of any state or federal right, with the exception of the right to a jury trial in district court.

    Effective October 1, 2015, applying to trials commencing on or after that date.