NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 271.80
TAMPERING WITH IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE-AVOIDING OR ALTERING TESTING IN OPERATION OF A VEHICLE. MISDEMEANOR.
The defendant has been charged with tampering with an ignition
interlock device.
For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, you must prove
two things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant [tampered with] [circumvented]
[attempted to circumvent] an ignition interlock device required to be
installed on a motor vehicle;
And Second, that the defendant acted for the purpose of [avoiding]
[altering] the testing of the ignition interlock device in the [operation]
[attempted operation] of a vehicle.1
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date, the defendant [tampered with] [circumvented]
[attempted to circumvent] an ignition interlock device required to be
installed on a motor vehicle, and that the defendant acted for the
purpose of [avoiding] [altering] the testing of the ignition interlock device
in the [operation] [attempted operation] of a vehicle, 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, then it would be
your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
History
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 271.80 (June 2012). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-17.8A. Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-25
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
45a648a6195e6be9f0261f84f073392bc9f1288dbc5bc620517f9efd31e6e398
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.