State v. Dutch
| Decision Date | 07 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 726,726 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Archie Malcolm DUTCH. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
George B. Patton, Atty. Gen., and Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Joe M. Cox, Laurinburg, for defendant, appellant.
The State offered plenary evidence that on July 14, 1956, at night, the car operated by Wright and a 1941 Ford, later identified as the Cox car, were involved in an accident resulting in injury to Wright; that these cars, proceeding in opposite directions, collided on Wright's side of the highway, the contact being from the bumper to the rear fender along the left side of each car; that the driver of the Cox car did not stop at or return to the scene of the accident; and that, as disclosed by subsequent investigation, the occupants of the Cox car when involved in said accident were Cox and Dutch.
Both defendants offered evidence. Evidence in behalf of Dutch, including his positive testimony, tended to show that Cox was the driver. Evidence in behalf of Cox, including his positive testimony, tended to show that Dutch was the driver.
There was evidence that, after the accident, the Cox car stopped some distance from and out of sight of the scene of the accident, at which time a fender, dragging against a tire, was lifted therefrom. With reference thereto, the testimony of Cox and that of Dutch was in conflict as to whether Dutch helped Cox lift the fender from the tire and as to whether Cox or Dutch drove the Cox car away from the place where this incident occurred.
In charging the jury, the court gave this instruction:
'In this case, as to defendant, Archie Malcolm Dutch, I instruct you, if the State of North Carolina has satisfied you from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the motor vehicle occupied by the two defendants, was driven and involved in an accident or collision with a motor vehicle driven by witness, Sam Wright; that Mr. Wright was personally injured in the accident; that the driver of the motor vehicle, occupied by the two defendants knew that his vehicle had been involved in an accident, resulting in injury to the person of the occupant of the other vehicle; that the driver of the car occupied by the two defendants, wilfully failed to stop at the scene of the accident, wilfully failed to give his name, address, operator's license number and registration number and wilfully failed to render reasonable assistance to the injured person; and if the State has further satisfied you from the the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, Dutch, was driving the vehicle at the time, that is, the vehicle occupied by the two defendants, (or if not driving, that he encouraged, assisted, aided and abetted the driver thereof, in all of said acts and conduct and participated therein as an aider and abetter, as I have explained the law of aiding and abetting to you, it would be your duty to find the defendant, Dutch, guilty as charged;) * * *.'
As to Cox, the court gave the same instruction.
Dutch assigns as error the portion of the quoted instruction indicated by parenthesis.
If Dutch was the driver, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of the crime for which he was indicted. But, under the insturctions given, the verdict does not establish the identity of the driver; nor do the instructions predicate Dutch's guilt as an aider and abetter upon a prior finding that Cox was the driver.
Under the evidence, Dutch's criminal responsibility, if any, as an aider and abetter presupposes that Cox was the driver. There was sharp conflict between the testimony of Cox and that of Dutch as to the identity of the driver. But the fact that this conflicting testimony was in evidence did not establish that either Cox or Dutch was the driver. The identity of the driver of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...when the driver fled the scene after an accident, but rather he must, by word or by deed, aid the driver (see, State v. Dutch, 246 N.C. 438, 440-41, 98 S.E.2d 475, 477; accord Robinson v. State, 132 Tex.Crim. 50, 102 S.W.2d 220; State v. McFarland, 158 Wash. 652, 291 P. 719). Therefore, it ......
-
State v. Leonard, 0602
...he argues that the trial judge committed the same error which required a reversal of the defendant's conviction in State v. Dutch, 246 N.C. 438, 98 S.E.2d 475 (1957). Dutch involved a hit and run collision between an automobile containing two occupants and another vehicle which resulted in ......
- State v. Floyd
-
State v. Leonard
...of the primary offense (in this case, reckless homicide) and should specify applicability only as to the driver. See, State v. Dutch, 246 N.C. 438, 98 S.E.2d 475 (1957). The jury should then be instructed to determine whether the other defendants are guilty as aiders or abettors. Presence a......