Opinion testimony by the arresting officer that asthma has no effect on a person’s ability to provide a sufficient breath sample was admitted over defendant’s objection by the Judge in the defendant’s jury trial. Additional evidence offered without objection was that the defendant’s inability to provide a breath sample was an attempt on behalf of the defendant to manipulate the Intoxilyzer. The refusal to submit to an Intoxilyzer breath analysis was held by the NC Court of Appeals as properly admitted as substantive evidence of a defendant’s guilt of driving while impaired. The NC Court of Appeals reviewed the objection to the Officer’s opinion on asthma as it relates to the Intoxilyzer under the plain error rule because defense counsel only raised a general objection and failed to move to strike the officer’s testimony. Although the Court ruled that the admission of the Officer’s opinion is improper, lacks foundation, and is inadmissible the Court under the plain error standard deemed that the opinion in light of all the evidence would not have changed the outcome had it been excluded in the defendant’s trial (State v. Wilson 185 N.C. App. 161, 647 S.E.2d 688 (2007)).