State v. Felts

Decision Date23 July 1969
Docket NumberNo. 6921SC309,6921SC309
Citation5 N.C.App. 499,168 S.E.2d 483
PartiesSTATE of North Carolina v. Roger Franklin FELTS.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by Real Property Atty. Rafford E. Jones, Raleigh, for the State.

White, Crumpler & Pfefferkorn, by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., and William G. Pfefferkorn, Winston-Salem, for defendant appellant.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The defendant made numerous assignments of error, but since there must be a new trial, we will refrain from a discussion of the evidence and the numerous assignments of error as they are unlikely to arise on a new trial.

In the charge to the jury, the learned trial judge gave the following instruction:

'Well, I instruct you, first, that this statute provides that one may not operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of some intoxicant. It is not necessary for one to be drunk and operate a motor vehicle on a public highway to violate this statute, although one would be guilty if he were drunk and operated a motor vehicle on a public highway, but it says, if you paid attention to the statute, only under the influence. So, then, I instruct you that one is under the influence of an intoxicant when he has consumed some quantity of an intoxicating beverage whether it be a small amount or a large amount, one drink or several drinks, or one bottle of beer or one can of beer, or more than one, so as to cause him to lose the normal control of his bodily faculties or his mental faculties, or both of those faculties, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of either one of those faculties, that is, bodily or mental faculties.

(So, there isn't anything complicated about what is meant by being under the influence of an intoxicant as defined by our Courts. There is only one term, or two words, in that definition which might need to be explained to you, and that is the words, or the term, appreciable extent. That simply means has a person had enough intoxicants so that if some person observes him--has the opportunity to see him, talk with him and observe him--has he had enough intoxicants so that it may be recognized that he has had something intoxicating to drink, and that he has had enough so that that person may estimate and come into court and, under oath, testify about it is what is meant by appreciable extent; that is, sufficient to be recognized and estimated. So, then, to summarize, I guess I should say that if one operates a motor vehicle on a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Anderson, No. COA04-891 (NC 6/7/2005)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 June 2005
    ...that is, sufficient to be recognized and estimated, for a proper finding that defendant was impaired. See State v. Felts, 5 N.C. App. 499, 168 S.E.2d 483 (1969) (new trial on other grounds). 78 N.C. App. 39, 45, 336 S.E.2d 852, 855 (1985) (emphasis supplied). "The opinion of a law enforceme......
  • State v. Faulise, No. COA08-1124 (N.C. App. 5/5/2009)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 5 May 2009
    ...a motor vehicle while under the influence of some intoxicant, but a person need only be under the influence. State v. Felts, 5 N.C. App. 499, 500, 168 S.E.2d 483 (1969). Officer Newman testified that Defendant admitted that he had been drinking and that he was alone in the car. The officers......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 1 September 1987
    ...that is, sufficient to be recognized and estimated, for a proper finding that defendant was impaired. See State v. Felts, 5 N.C.App. 499, 168 S.E.2d 483 (1969) (new trial on other State v. Harrington, 78 N.C.App. 39, 45, 336 S.E.2d 852, 855 (1985). Thus, there must be some evidence of the d......
  • State v. Catoe
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 3 December 1985
    ...This evidence sufficed to go to the jury on the question of DWI regardless of Dr. Ellis' testimony. Sigmon; see State v. Felts, 5 N.C.App. 499, 168 S.E.2d 483 (1969) (effect of alcohol must be recognizable) (new trial on unrelated Accordingly, we conclude that defendant has failed to show p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT