N.C.P.I.—Crim. 206.55A

NOTE WELL: This instruction is to be used for offenses

occurring on or after December 1, 2006. For offenses

occurring before December 1, 2006, use N.C.P.I.—Crim.

206.56.

CAUTION: If the jury convicts the defendant of this

involuntary manslaughter offense involving impaired

driving1 and driving while impaired, the court should

arrest judgment on the driving while impaired offense.

The defendant has been charged with involuntary manslaughter.2

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must

prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant was driving3 a [vehicle]4 [commercial

vehicle].

Second, that the defendant was driving that vehicle upon a

[highway] [street] [public vehicular area] within the state.5

Third, that at the time the defendant was driving that [vehicle]

[commercial vehicle] the defendant:

a) [was under the influence of an impairing substance.6 ((Name

substance involved) is an impairing substance.) The defendant is

under the influence of an impairing substance when the

defendant has taken (or consumed) a sufficient quantity of that

impairing substance to cause the defendant to lose the normal

control of the defendant’s bodily or mental faculties, or both, to

such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment7 of either

or both of these faculties.8]

b) [had consumed sufficient alcohol that a chemical analysis9 made

at any relevant time after driving showed the defendant to have

an alcohol concentration10 of [0.08] [0.04]11 or more grams of

alcohol [per 210 liters of breath] [per 100 milliliters of blood]. A

relevant time is any time after driving in which the driver still

has in the driver’s body alcohol consumed before or during

driving].12

c) [had any amount of [a Schedule I controlled substance]

[metabolites of a Schedule I controlled substance] in the

defendant’s [blood] [urine] [breath]]. (Name substance) is a

Schedule I controlled substance or is a metabolite13 of a

Schedule I controlled substance.].14

(If the evidence tends to show that [a chemical test known as a(n)

[intoxilizer] [breathalyzer] [blood test] [urine test]15 was offered to the

defendant by a law enforcement officer and that the defendant refused to

take the test] [the defendant refused to perform a field sobriety test at

the request of an officer], you may consider this evidence together with

all other evidence in determining whether the defendant was under the

influence of an impairing substance at the time the defendant (allegedly)

drove a motor vehicle.)16

And Fourth, that the impaired driving by the defendant proximately

caused the victim’s death. Proximate cause is a real cause, a cause

without which the victim’s death would not have occurred, and one that a

reasonably careful and prudent person could foresee would probably

produce such [injury] [damage] or some similar injurious result. (The

defendant’s act(s) need not have been the last, or nearest cause. It is

sufficient if [it] [they] concurred with some other cause acting at the

same time which, in combination with, proximately caused the victim’s

death.)

If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or

about the alleged date the defendant drove a [vehicle] [commercial

vehicle] on a [highway] [street] [public vehicular area] and that when the

defendant did so the defendant [was under the influence of an impairing

substance] [had consumed sufficient alcohol that a chemical analysis

made at any relevant time after driving showed the defendant to have an

alcohol concentration of [0.08] [0.04] or more grams of alcohol [per 210

liters of breath] [per 100 milliliters of blood]][had any amount of [a

Schedule I controlled substance] [metabolites of a Schedule I controlled

substance] in the defendant’s blood or urine], and that defendant’s

impaired driving proximately caused the victim’s death, it would be your

duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find or have a

reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it would be your duty

to return a verdict of not guilty.17