State v. Clark
Citation | 290 N.W. 237,67 S.D. 133 |
Decision Date | 10 February 1940 |
Docket Number | 8281. |
Parties | STATE v. CLARK. |
Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Yankton County; A. B. Beck, Judge.
William Clark was convicted of failing to stop his automobile at scene of accident in which it was involved and failing to make a report of the accident, and he appeals.
Modified and, as modified, affirmed.
H. A Doyle and Frank Biegelmeier, both of Yankton, for appellant.
Leo A Temmey, Atty. Gen., and H. O. Lund, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury finding him guilty upon each of two counts and from the order denying him a new trial. The first count of the information charging the commission of the crime of reckless driving was dismissed. The second count charged that defendant, the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the death of William H. Eckart, did not immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident. The third count charged the commission of the crime of failing to make a report of the accident.
The facts out of which each of these charges arose were that on July 30, 1938, between the hours of 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, William H. Eckart was struck by an automobile driven by the defendant. Eckart rode with C. A. Pearson enroute from Steele City, Nebraska, to Yankton, South Dakota. They arrived in Yankton in the evening and about midnight parked their car in a roadway in the outskirts of the city. On the north of this trail was a cornfield and on the south a stubble field. The defendant, an employee of the state hospital for the insane, returning to the institution drove his car into the trail from the east. He was accompanied at and prior to the time of the casualty by one Louise Miller. As defendant approached the Pearson car parked in the trail he turned to the left to avoid the cornfield. The car struck Eckart who was lying on the ground a few feet south of the Pearson car. Defendant testified that he believed the object which he struck to be a rock. Miss Miller testified that she remained seated in the car and that when they left the scene of the accident she did not know that a person had been struck. From the state's evidence the jury could and did reach the conclusion that defendant knew that he struck someone. Pearson testified: This witness testified that defendant was at the scene of the accident between ten and fifteen minutes.
Defendant was arrested the morning following the accident and was placed in the county jail in Yankton. He did not forward a report of the accident to the motor vehicle department or to the police headquarters in Yankton. Defendant testified that he requested a deputy sheriff to communicate with the steward at the state hospital, but that his request was ignored. He contends that his purpose was to secure information and the counsel of a friend.
Defendant urges as grounds for reversal that the evidence introduced in support of each of the charges is insufficient to support the verdict and the judgment pronounced upon him for the reason that the evidence shows that defendant did stop immediately at the scene of the accident and that his imprisonment prevented him from making a report of the accident.
Section 30, Chapter 251, Laws 1929 (Uniform Motor Vehicle Act) read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial