State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 06 March 1979
• Docket Number: No. 7813SC721,7813SC721
• Citation: 40 N.C.App. 72,252 S.E.2d 535
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Raphael SMITH.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 535

252 S.E.2d 535

40 N.C.App. 72

STATE of North Carolina v.Raphael SMITH.

No. 7813SC721.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 6, 1979.

Ray H. Walton, Southport, for defendantappellant.

MITCHELL, Judge.

The sole assignment of error presented and argued on appeal by the defendant is directed to the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss made pursuant to G.S. 15A-1227.The defendant contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction and that his motion should have been allowed.In support of this contention, the defendant argues that the State's evidence failed to show either that a crime was committed or that the defendant committed any criminal act.

A motion for dismissal pursuant to G.S. 15A-1227 tests the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.In that respect it is identical to a motion for judgment as in the case of nonsuit under G.S. 15-173.SeeState v. Vaughan, 268 N.C. 105, 150 S.E.2d 31(1966).Therefore, controlling cases dealing with the sufficiency of evidence to withstand a motion for judgment as in the case of nonsuit are equally applicable to the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a motion for dismissal pursuant to G.S. 15A-1227.

Proof of a charge in a criminal case requires the proving of two distinct matters: (1) the Corpus delicti or, stated differently, that the act complained of was done, and (2) that it was done by the person or persons charged.Proof of both is necessary to sustain a conviction.State v. Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 246, 250 S.E.2d 204, 209(1978);State v. Bass, 253 N.C. 318, 116 S.E.2d 772(1960);State v. Norggins, 215 N.C. 220, 1 S.E.2d 533(1939).

Although it is clear that the State must offer evidence of each element of the offense charged and evidence that it was committed by the defendant, until recent years the test governing the amount or type of evidence required on each of these points has been stated in less than consistent terms.E. g.: State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 90 S.E.2d 241(1955)("more than a scintilla of competent evidence");State v. Gordon, 225 N.C. 757, 36 S.E.2d 143(1945)("any competent evidence");State v. Mann, 219 N.C. 212, 13 S.E.2d 247, 132 A.L.R. 1309(1941)("any evidence");State v. Shermer, 216 N.C. 719, 6 S.E.2d 529(1940)("more than a mere scintilla");State v. McLean, 209 N.C. 38, 182 S.E. 700(1935)("any evidence reasonably sufficient to go to the jury").The more modern cases, however, seem to agree that the amount of evidence required as to each essential element in order to withstand motions for judgment as in the case of nonsuit or for dismissal is controlled by the "substantial evidence" or "more than a scintilla of evidence" test.In State v. Weinstein, 224 N.C. 645, 31 S.E.2d 920(1944), the Supreme Court of North Carolina strongly implied that these two tests are in fact identical and interchangeable when it specifically stated that, in order to overcome such motions, the State was required to produce "any substantial evidence more than a scintilla to prove the allegations of the bill."To this day, it appears that the "more than a scintilla of evidence" test and the "substantial evidence" test are in reality only one test which is most frequently designated the "substantial evidence test."Compare, e. g., State v. Agnew, 294 N.C. 382, 241 S.E.2d 684(1978);With State v. Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 250 S.E.2d 204(1978);And State v. Snead, 295 N.C. 615, 247 S.E.2d 893(1978).

The interchangeable use of two designations for one test, although at times somewhat confusing, would appear correct.The requirement that the State's evidence of each element be "substantial" is simply a requirement that it be existing and real, not just seeming or imaginary.Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1971).Therefore, anything more than a scintilla of evidence is "substantial evidence."SeeState v. Weinstein, 224 N.C. 645, 648, 31 S.E.2d 920, 923(1944).Having so determined we must proceed to apply the substantial evidence test to the case at hand.

The defendant contends that the substantial evidence offered by the State must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order to overcome his motion to dismiss.We are advertent to a line of cases tending to support this position.See, e. g.: State v. Langlois, 258 N.C. 491, 128 S.E.2d 803(1963);State v. Bass, 253 N.C. 318, 116 S.E.2d 772(1960);State v. Fulk, 232 N.C. 118, 59 S.E.2d 617(1950);State v. Frye, 229 N.C. 581, 50 S.E.2d 895(1948);State v. Minton, 228 N.C. 518, 46 S.E.2d 296(1948);State v. Coffey, 228 N.C. 119, 44 S.E.2d 886(1947);And State v. Harvey, 228 N.C. 62, 44 S.E.2d 472(1947).However, it is clear that the law is otherwise.The trial court is not required to determine that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence prior to denying a defendant's motion to dismiss.State v. Poole, 285 N.C. 108, 203 S.E.2d 786(1974);State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 170 S.E.2d 466(1969);State v. Burton, 272 N.C. 687, 158 S.E.2d 883(1968);State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 97 S.E.2d 444(1957);State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431(1956);State v. Griffin, 18 N.C.App. 14, 195 S.E.2d 569(1973).In ruling upon the defendant's motion to dismiss or for judgment as in the case of nonsuit, the trial court is limited Solely to the function of determining whether a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt of the crime charged May be drawn from the evidence.State v. Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 250 S.E.2d 204(1978).If the trial court determines that a Reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt May be drawn from the evidence, it must deny the defendant's motion and send the case to the jury even though the evidence may also support reasonable inferences of the defendant's innocence.

The controlling rule of law was best set forth in State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 383-84, 93 S.E.2d 431, 433-34(1956).There, the Supreme Court of North Carolina speaking through Justice Higgins stated that:

We are advertent to the intimation in some of the decisions involving circumstantial evidence that to withstand a motion for nonsuit the circumstances must be inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.We think the correct rule is given in State v. Simmons, 240 N.C. 780, 83 S.E.2d 904, 908, quoting fromState v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429, 154 S.E. 730: " 'If there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue, or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury.' "The above is another way of saying there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense to withstand the motion to dismiss.It is immaterial whether the substantial evidence is circumstantial or direct, or both.To hold that the court must grant a motion to dismiss unless, in the opinion of the court, the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence would in effect constitute the presiding judge the trier of facts.Substantial evidence of guilt is required before the court can send the case to the jury.Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required before the jury can convict.What is substantial evidence is a question of law for the court.What that evidence proves or fails to prove is a question of fact for the jury.

Therefore, it is for the trial court to determine whether substantial evidence which will support a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt has been introduced.The trial court having found that such evidence has been introduced, it is Solely for the jury to determine whether the facts taken singly or in combination satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is in fact guilty.State v. Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 244, 250 S.E.2d 204, 209(1978).

The State's evidence in the present case was clearly sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the crime charged had been committed.Dr. Henry Singletary, a medical doctor specializing in pathology, testified that it was possible that the amount of alcohol in the blood of the deceased caused her death.He specifically testified, however, that it was his opinion that the deceased died of a combination of a high blood alcohol level and massive injuries which suppressed the respiratory reflexes of the lungs.His testimony also indicated that these injuries could have been induced by the tobacco stick which was found broken into pieces at the scene of the death of the deceased.Therefore, Dr. Singletary's testimony constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference that the crime of murder had been committed.This being the case, it was incumbent upon the trial court to permit the jury to determine whether the crime charged had in fact been committed.

Additionally, we think that substantial evidence was introduced to support a reasonable inference that the defendant committed the crime charged.In considering a motion for judgment as in the case of nonsuit or, as in the present case, a motion for dismissal pursuant to G.S. 15A-1227, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom.State v. Thomas, 296 N.C. 236, 250 S.E.2d 204(1978).All evidence admitted during the trial, whether competent or incompetent, which is favorable to the State must be taken as true, and contradictions or discrepancies therein must be resolved in the State's favor.State v. Agnew, 294 N.C. 382, 241 S.E.2d 684(1978).The trial court in considering such motions is concerned only with the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury and not with its weight.State v. McNeil, 280 N.C. 159, 185...