State v. Collins
| Citation | 247 N.C. 244,100 S.E.2d 489 |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 587,587 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE, v. Edward COLLINS, Jr. |
George B. Patton, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth Wooten, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Elreta Melton Alexander, Greensboro, for defendant, appellant.
The State's evidence--the defendant offered none--shows these facts:
About 11:00 p. m., or a little earlier, on 26 December 1956, James Robert Ore was driving an automobile about 15 or 20 miles an hour in a northerly direction on Church Street approximately one-half mile north of Greensboro. He first noticed the automobile driven by the defendant, which was meeting him, about a city block away. Defendant's automobile was coming over on Ore's side of the highway. Ore pulled his two wheels off the highway, and defendant's automobile hit his automobile, and knocked it off the highway over into a ditch. Defendant's automobile went about 30 feet beyond Ore's automobile. Ore got out of his automobile, and went to the defendant's automobile. The defendant had been thrown out of his automobile, and Ore picked him up. Defendant was holding his head: he seemed like a person who was hurt. He smelled no alcohol on defendant's breath. Ore asked him if he wanted him to carry him to a doctor. He replied, No. Ore left to call an officer. The officer came to the scene in about 15 minutes, and the defendant was gone.
In response to a call State Highway Patrolman W. F. Clay arrived at the scene of the collision about 11:20 p. m. He saw Ore there. A taxicab passed the scene of the collision at 11:45 p. m. The patrolman got in his automobile, and stopped the taxicab about a half mile north of the scene. The defendant was in the taxicab. The defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, and had urinated in his pants. His speech was incoherent, and he was unable to stand without assistance. He walked with a stagger. In the opinion of the officer, he was drunk. Defendant said he had had nothing to drink, and was trying to get home in the taxicab. The officer saw no cuts, bruises or abrasions on defendant's head. Defendant said his head was not hurting. Defendant told the officer he was driving the automobile that collided with Ore's automobile. The officer explained the blood test system to defendant, and asked him if he would like to have one. The defendant said that he would.
R. B. Davis, Jr., at the defendant's request, drew blood from the defendant at 12:15 a. m. the same night. At the trial defendant's counsel stated to the court 'for the record, we will admit that Mr. Davis is an expert in any field that the Solicitor desires to qualify him.' The court held that R. B. Davis, Jr. was an expert as a 'clinical technologist, chemist, toxicologist and hematologist.' Davis testified that the results of the test of defendant's blood showed the presence of .22% alcoholic concentration in the blood of defendant, and that in his opinion defendant was under the influence of alcohol.
The defendant's assignments of error as to the evidence are without merit, and are overruled.
The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court to allow his motion for judgment of nonsuit, and relies on State v. Hough, 229 N.C. 532, 50 S.E.2d 496, 497. The facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts here. In the Hough Case all the evidence as to whether or not the defendant was guilty of the same offense as in the instant case came from officers who reached the scene of the wreck 25 or 30 minutes after it occurred. The Court said: 'If the witnesses who observed the defendant immediately after his accident, were unable to tell whether or not he was under the influence of an intoxicant or whether his condition was the result of the injuries he had just sustained, we do not see how the jury could do so.'
We held in State v. Kelly, 227 N.C. 62, 40 S.E.2d 454, which was a prosecution for drunken driving, that evidence that defendant was found intoxicated at his place of business some 12 or 14 hours after the time of the offense charged, without evidence that the defendant was continuously intoxicated during this time, was incompetent as evidence. We have also held in Raynor v. Wilmington Seacoast R., 129 N.C. 195, 39 S.E. 821, that evidence that a passenger was drunk at 3:45 in the afternoon is inadmissible to corroborate evidence that he was drunk at 11:00 in the forenoon. State v. Smith, 240 N.C. 99, 81 S.E.2d 263, was a prosecution for drunken driving. A State Highway Patrolman reached...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cooke, 333
...after the accident was plenary to overrule the motion for nonsuit unaided by the results of the Breathalyzer test. State v. Collins, 247 N.C. 244, 100 S.E.2d 489; State v. Smith, 240 N.C. 99, 81 S.E.2d 263; State v. Dawson, 228 N.C. 85, 44 S.E.2d 527; cf. State v. Kelly, 227 N.C. 62, 40 S.E......
- State v. Johnson
-
State v. Drdak
...Court has held such results admissible in other cases prior to the adoption of the implied consent statute. E.g., State v. Collins, 247 N.C. 244, 100 S.E.2d 489 (1957); State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E.2d 548 (1956); State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E.2d 899 The language allowing "o......
-
State v. Paschal, 589
...N.C. 158, 95 S.E.2d 548; State v. Henderson, 245 N.C. 165, 95 S.E.2d 594; State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E.2d 899; State v. Collins, 247 N.C. 244, 100 S.E.2d 489. In each of these cases, the blood specimen was obtained for chemical analysis with the defendant's In Osborne v. Colonial ......