State v. Locklear, 7016SC166
| Decision Date | 01 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7016SC166,7016SC166 |
| Citation | 172 S.E.2d 924,7 N.C.App. 493 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Walter Lee LOCKLEAR. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen, Raleigh, for the State.
J. H. Barrington, Jr., Lumberton, for defendant appellant.
Defendant contends his motion for nonsuit should have been allowed because the State failed to show any causal connection between the wreck and the injuries which caused the death of the deceased. We find no merit in this contention.
To warrant conviction in a homicide case it is, of course, necessary that the State produce evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased proximately resulted from the defendant's unlawful act. State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844. It is equally well established, however, that in passing upon a motion for nonsuit in a criminal case, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give the State benefit of every reasonable inference which may be legitimately drawn therefrom. State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E.2d 469. If when so considered there is substantial evidence, whether direct, circumstantial, or both, of all material elements of the offense charged, then the motion for nonsuit must be denied and it is then for the jury to determine whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431.
In the present case there was no direct evidence that the deceased received any injuries as a result of the wreck. Two doctors who examined him after the wreck and before his death failed to discover his injuries, which were only revealed by the autopsy made on the following day. There was, however, testimony that prior to the wreck he was a normal and healthy person and had not received any type of injury. There was also testimony that he received no injury during the six and one-half hours which intervened between the wreck and his death. From this evidence a legitimate inference may be reasonably drawn that the deceased received the injuries which caused his death as a result of the automobile wreck. Indeed, on the evidence in this case it would strain credulity to find otherwise. There was ample evidence to support a jury finding that the wreck was caused by defendant's culpable negligence in driving at a high rate of speed and while intoxicated. State v. Lindsey, 264...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barron v. Eastpointe Human Servs. Lme
...the inappropriate nature of specific conduct admitted to by Mr. Barron, it would "strain credulity[,]" State v. Locklear, 7 N.C.App. 493, 496, 172 S.E.2d 924, 927 (1970), for this Court to hold that ground 2 was not "described with sufficient particularity" so that Mr. Barron would "know pr......
-
State v. Coble, 7419SC826
...the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431.' State v. Locklear, 7 N.C.App. 493, 496, 172 S.E.2d 924, 926 (1970). After carefully reviewing the record, we hold that the court properly ruled that the evidence in this case was suffi......
-
State v. Cheek, 7319SC349
...proximately resulted from the defendant's unlawful act. State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844 (1951); State v. Locklear, 7 N.C.App. 493, 172 S.E.2d 924 (1970). With respect to the decedent, Beverly Cross, the evidence tended to On the evening of the accident, Miss Cross, defendant an......
- Bahadur v. McLean, 6915SC21