State v. Wall
| Decision Date | 14 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 439,439 |
| Citation | 90 S.E.2d 383,243 N.C. 238 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Robert Lee WALL. |
Wm. Rodman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Robert Giles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the state.
Thos. W. Ruffin, Raleigh, for defendant appellant.
Consideration of the seven assignments of error, based upon one hundred twentynine exceptions taken during the course of the trial and to the charge of the court, reveals error for which defendant is entitled to partial relief and a new trial.
As to assignments of error based upon exceptions to denial of motions for judgment as of nonsuit: First--In reference to first count, or manslaughter charge, in No. 626--The Court is of opinion and holds that the evidence offered upon the trial, taken in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to take the case to the jury. Hence the motion in respect to this count here considered was properly overruled.
Nevertheless assignments of error based upon exceptions to the refusal of the trial court to give certain requests for instruction in respect to culpable negligence, and in charging, and in failing to charge the jury in respect thereto appear to be valid. See State v. Cope, 204 N.C. 28, 167 S.E. 456; State v. Wooten, 228 N.C. 628, 46 S.E.2d 868.
Applicable principles of law are found in the Cope case where in opinion by Stacy, C. J., the line which separates the principle of actionable negligence in the law of torts, and that of culpable negligence in the law of crimes is delineated, and in accordance therewith previous decisions of this Court are aligned. It is sufficient to refer to what is said there.
As there must be a new trial on the manslaughter charge, this Court refrains from discussion of the evidence.
Second--In reference to the second count in each of the two bills of indictment--It is appropriate to advert to the statute G.S. § 20-166(a) and (c) under which defendant is indicted. This statute provides in subsection (a) that 'The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident or collision resulting in injury or death to any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or collision, and any person violating this provision shall upon conviction be punished as provided in § 20-182.'
And this statute also provides in subsection (c) that 'The driver of any vehicle involved in any accident or collision resulting in injury or death to any person or damage to property shall also give his name, address, operator's or chauffeur's license number and the registration number of his vehicle to the person struck or the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with, and shall render to any person injured in such accident or collision reasonable assistance, including the carrying of such person to a physician or surgeon for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that such treatment is necessary or is requested by the injured person, and it shall be unlawful for any person to violate this provision, and such violator shall be punishable as provided in § 20-182.'
Now, with respect to so much of the offense as charges in each case failure 'to stop his automobile at the scene of the accident': Proof of this charge is wholly lacking. Alton Alford, witness for the State, in describing the movement of the automobiles at the scene of the accident testified: 'The Oldsmobile being driven by Robert Lee Wall passed me on the right * * * and traveled down the shoulder of the road, struck a mail box, swerved across the road and went on into some pines and stopped * * *.'
And State Highway Patrolman Wicker, as witness for the State, testified: 'It was perfectly plain and obvious when I got up there to the Oldsmobile of Robert Lee Wall's that as he had told me, it had gone out of control and had run off the road, had hit a mail box and cut off to the left and went up in the bushes, so that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Covington
...284 N.C. 174, 200 S.E.2d 27; State v. Kirby, 273 N.C. 306, 160 S.E.2d 24; State v. Green, 251 N.C. 40, 110 S.E.2d 609; State v. Wall, 243 N.C. 238, 90 S.E.2d 383; State v. Hudson, 218 N.C. 219, 10 S.E.2d good health before he left home on 13 December supported the State's contention that Mr......
-
State v. Wilson
...Cal.App.2d 859, 43 Cal.Rptr. 286 (Dist.Ct.App.1965); Commonwealth v. D'Agostino, 344 Mass. 276, 182 N.E.2d 133 (1962); State v. Wall, 243 N.C. 238, 90 S.E.2d 383 (1955). However, reception at trial of irrelevant and immaterial evidence, which serves no probative function, but serves only to......
-
State v. Mayhand
...new trial. 1 Stansbury's N.C. Evidence § 80 (Brandis rev. 1973); State v. Gaskins, 252 N.C. 46, 112 S.E.2d 745 (1960); State v. Wall, 243 N.C. 238, 90 S.E.2d 383 (1955). The trial court has broad discretion in the admission of demonstrative evidence, especially as to the similarity of condi......
-
State v. Cassell
...showing shotgun pellets in the deceased's head. Citing State v. Mercer, 275 N.C. 108, 165 S.E.2d 328 (1969) and State v. Wall, 243 N.C. 238, 90 S.E.2d 383 (1955), defendant argues that this evidence was rendered irrelevant by the stipulation and had no probative value with respect to any is......