State v. Atwood

• Decision Date: 17 June 1976
• Docket Number: No. 21,21
• Citation: 290 N.C. 266,225 S.E.2d 543
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Katharine Marie ATWOOD.

Page 543

225 S.E.2d 543

290 N.C. 266

STATE of North Carolina v. Katharine Marie ATWOOD.

No. 21.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 17, 1976.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Associate Atty. James Wallace, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.

Herman L. Stephens, Winston-Salem, for defendant appellant.

COPELAND, Justice.

Defendant's appeal presents the following question 1. Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in denying defendant's motion for nonsuit?

The only motion for dismissal made by defendant was at the close of the State's evidence. By introducing evidence, she waived this motion. G.S. 15--173. In a criminal case, however, on appeal the court reviews the sufficiency of all the evidence to sustain the verdict, notwithstanding defendant failed to move for nonsuit at the conclusion of all the evidence. G.S. 15--173.1. State v. Rigsbee, 285 N.C. 708, 208 S.E.2d 656 (1974).

Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient for a valid conviction under G.S. 20--28(a) for driving while her license was suspended because the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime. She contends that the State must prove a lawful suspension of her license. She argues that there was no showing of her license being lawfully suspended at the time of her arrest because the license was not suspended in accordance with the procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In particular, she contends that requirements of procedural due process were not met because she had no actual notice of the proposed suspension and of her right to an opportunity to be heard prior to the effective date of the purported suspension and because she, in fact, had no opportunity to be heard prior to the effective date of the purported suspension.

The State contends that procedural due process does not require actual notice and that the constructive notice given in this case was adequate. The State contends that the constructive notice given was sufficient to provide an opportunity for defendant to have a hearing. The State argues that if defendant had properly submitted a change of address form with the Department then defendant would have had notice and an opportunity for a prior hearing if she had requested one. Notice was mailed on 23 September 1974 and would have been complete under G.S. 20--48 upon the expiration of four days. Since suspension was not effective until 3 October 1974, notice would be complete so that she might request and receive a hearing as much as six days before the suspension.

According to stipulation, the established policy of the Department is upon request to grant a preliminary hearing in a discretionary matter such as this and to rescind the order of suspension until such time as the preliminary hearing is conducted. In this regard, it might be noted that there was no evidence that defendant or others in her position were aware of this policy. G.S. 20--16(d) merely provides that a preliminary hearing shall be held within 20 days of receipt of request. The notice to defendant failed to disclose this policy of the Department when it stated that defendant was not entitled to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension pending the hearing.

We have previously held that a conviction under G.S. 20--28(a) requires that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt (1) the operation of a motor vehicle by a person (2) on a public highway (3) while his operator's license is suspended or revoked. State v. Cook, 272 N.C. 728, 158 S.E.2d 820 (1968); State v. Blacknell, 270 N.C. 103, 153 S.E.2d 884 (1967); N.C.P.I.--Crim. 271.10 (October 1974).

However, we believe that the legislature also intended that there be actual or constructive knowledge of the suspension or revocation in order for there to be a conviction under this statute. We reach this conclusion for the reason that G.S. 20--16(d) requires the Department to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing in order for there to be a lawful suspension. For purposes of a Conviction for driving while license is suspended or revoked, mailing of the notice under G.S. 20--48 raises only a Prima facie presumption that defendant received the notice and thereby asquired knowledge of the suspension or revocation. See Willis v. Davis Industries, 280 N.C. 709, 186 S.E.2d 913 (1972); Mill Co. v. Webb, 164 N.C. 87, 80 S.E. 232 (1913). Thus, defendant is not by this statute denied the right to rebut this presumption.

G.S. 20--7.1, which imposes a duty on licensees to notify the Division of Motor Vehicles within 60 days of each change of address, is not applicable to this case since it did not become effective until 1 July 1975. This statute leaves unchanged the fact that there is no duty imposed on the licensee to notify the Division of Motor Vehicles until 60 days after a move. Thus, because of the rapid mobility of society, this 60 days provision may render it impractical for adequate notice to be given to numerous violators. We conclude that it would be more practical if the time limit for giving notice of a change of address were substantially less.

In determining the question of judgment as of nonsuit, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E.2d 575 (1975); State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 156 S.E.2d 679 (1967). Furthermore, 'the defendant's evidence which explains or makes clear the evidence of the State may be considered' as well as 'defendant's evidence which rebuts the inference of guilt when it is not inconsistent with the State's Evidence.' (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Bruton, 264 N.C. 488, 499, 142 S.E.2d 169, 176 (1965); Accord, State v. Blizzard, 280 N.C. 11, 16, 184 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1971).

'If, when the evidence is so considered, it is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to . . . the commission of the offense . . ., the motion for nonsuit should be allowed.' State v. Cutler, supra at 383, 156 S.E.2d at 682.

In State v. Carter, 254 N.C. 475, 479, 119 S.E.2d 461, 464 (1961) we stated:

'And when the State's evidence and that of the defendant is to the same effect, and tend only to exculpate the defendant, his motion for judgment as of nonsuit should be allowed.' (Citation omitted).

The State's evidence as to notice tended to show that the Department mailed one letter to defendant on 23 September 1974 to notify her of the suspension of her operator's license from 3 October 1974 to 2 December 1974. On 2 October 1974 the letter was returned to the Department, which marked it 'ORDER UNCLAIMED.' No further attempt was made by the Department to notify defendant of her suspension. On cross-examination the State's own witness testified that defendant told him she resided at Cedardale Lane in King when he stopped her and that 'she did not know her license was suspended and that no one had been in touch with her.'

Defendant's evidence in explanation of the State's evidence indicates that she did not live at the address to which the Department mailed the notice. She testified that she had moved twice since holding that address and that she had submitted change of address cards to the Post Office upon both moves. Her first move was within the same city. The fact that the notice was returned unclaimed indicates that pursuant to the regulations of the Post Office it discontinued forwarding defendant's mail from her first address after her second permanent move within one year. 39 C.F.R. § 158.2 (1974). Also, defendant testified that she had no notice or knowledge of suspension of her license.

Thus, all the evidence indicates that defendant had no notice or knowledge of suspension of her license. The evidence completely rebuts the Prima facie presumption that the notice mailed to defendant's McCreay Street address was actually received. The lack of actual notice and resulting knowledge removes the criminal character from defendant's conduct, and the court should have granted a nonsuit.

State v. Teasley, supra, is distinguishable from the present case because in Teasley defendant offered no evidence to rebut the Prima facie presumption that notice was received upon the mailing, whereas here all the evidence rebuts that presumption.

On account of our disposition of the nonsuit issue it is unnecessary to consider defendant's contention as to the charge of the court.

REVERSED.

EXUM, Justice (concurring).

I agree with the Court that the state's evidence negated defendant's culpability. I add these additional observations:

General Statute 20--28(a) does not specify whether one must operate a motor vehicle Knowing that his license has been suspended before he commits a violation of the section. Our traditional rule, however, is that when the General Assembly does not specify whether guilty knowledge, or Mens rea, is required the necessity of its existence will nonetheless be implied. State v. Welch, 232 N.C. 77, 59 S.E.2d 199 (1950); State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 61 S.E.2d 93 (1950); State v. Powell, 141 N.C. 780, 53 S.E. 515 (1906); Accord, Sweet v. Parsley, (1969) 1 All E.R. 347 (House of Lords); See A. Loewy, Criminal Law in a Nutshell § 7.04B (1975).

The rule was first announced in State v. Powell, supra, where defendant had been convicted of retailing intoxicating liquor. The trial judge refused to admit evidence that defendant honestly and reasonably thought that what he sold was not alcoholic in nature. For this error this Court ordered a new trial holding that such evidence ought to be received and the jury properly instructed upon it. In a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion Justice Connor made these points: (1) General defenses to criminal liability are, as a matter of statutory construction, read into criminal statutes. (2) If the courts did not recognize these defenses then courts and statutes alike should be abated as public nuisances. (3) While ignorance of...