State v. Kirk, 437
| Citation | 133 S.E.2d 65,260 N.C. 447 |
| Decision Date | 06 November 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 437,437 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE, v. Ernest KIRK, Jr. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard T. Sanders, for the State.
Leath, Blount & Hinson, Rockingham, for defendant appellant.
The State's evidence shows the following: James Harding, a deputy sheriff of Richmond County, whose sister defendant married, on 1 June 1963 was driving an automobile on Highland Pines Road between the towns of Rockingham and Hamlet. He met the defendant, who was driving across the center line and on the shoulder and back on the pavement. He turned around to stop him. Defendant turned into Dawkins Street, ran over some shrubbery in a man's yard, and then ran into a tree which stopped him. Harding came up, put him in his car, and carried him to jail. Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, staggered on his feet, and in Harding's opinion was drunk. Deputy Sheriff Cockman saw Harding put defendant in jail, and, in his opinion, defendant was drunk.
Defendant offered evidence as follows: He had been drinking earlier in the day, but was not drunk when arrested. He was not driving the truck. One Sellars was in the truck with him and was driving. There has been ill will between him and his brother-in-law Harding for a long time. His wife, to whom he had been married 19 years, told him the reason they could not get along was because of her family. Every time his wife went to her family's home they would brainwash her, like they did in Korea. His wife had him indicted once for an assault, and her brother talked her into it. About 2:20 p. m. on 1 June 1963 his wife came home after work. He had had something to drink. She stayed about ten minutes and went to her brother's house for help.
The court in its charge stated the contentions of defendant substantially as follows Defendant contends this is a family affair; Deputy Sheriff Harding, his brother-in-law, had it in for him. He was not drunk. He had been drinking that morning at 11:00 a. m., and he and his wife had some dispute. She went to her brother, and for that reason Harding was out looking for him, was mad with him, and had ill feeling against him. He was not intoxicated and was not driving the truck. Then the court instructed the jury, which defendant assigns as error, 'Now, you should disabuse your minds, if you can, of any family connection and all the things said about the family connection.' Defendant further...
To continue reading
Request your trial