State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 25 May 1938 |
| Docket Number | 653. |
| Citation | 197 S.E. 142,213 N.C. 648 |
| Parties | STATE v. HARRIS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; W. F. Harding, Judge.
B. R Harris was convicted of operating an automobile while intoxicated, and he appeals.
No error.
If there is a slight inaccuracy in the statement of the evidence by the court in charging a jury, it is not reversible error in the absence of the inaccuracy being called to the attention of the judge at the time.
Gold McAnally & Gold, of High Point, for appellant.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and Emmett Willis Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of High Point of operating an automobile upon the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, C.S. § 4506, and appealed to the Superior Court of Guilford County where upon a trial de novo he was again convicted and appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
The first assignment of error is to the Court's permitting the State's witness, over objection, to testify that in his opinion the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating beverages. This assignment cannot be sustained. To the general rule that the opinion evidence is incompetent there are three, at least, well recognized exceptions: first, opinions of experts, second, opinions on the question of identity, and third, opinions received from necessity, i. e., when from the nature of the subject under investigation, no better evidence can be obtained. State v. McLaughlin, 126 N.C. 1080, 35 S.E. 1037. We think, and so hold, that the evidence assigned as error falls within the third category.
The second assignment of error assails that portion of the charge which reads: "If a man is under the influence of intoxicating liquor he has got enough to make him think or act or do differently from what he would think or act if he did not have it, whether it is a spoonful or a quart, whether it is a bottle of beer or a quart of liquor". This instruction is in substantial accord with the definition of "under the influence of an intoxicant" approved in State v. Dills, 204 N.C. 33, 167 S.E. 459, and cannot be held for reversible error.
The third assignment of error assails that portion of the charge which reads: "* * * there is some evidence tending to show both-that he was intoxicated at that time, and said to his friend that he was going back to the City Park, and at that time his friend stated to him he was so drunk he was going to take him home and put him to bed". We cannot see wherein this instruction impinges the provision of C.S. § 564 t...
To continue reading
Request your trial