 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Brooks3/18/2003
UNPUBLISHED
A decision without a published opinion is authority only in the case in which such decision is rendered and should not be cited in any other case in any court for any other purpose, nor should any court consider any such decision for any purpose except in the case in which such decision is rendered. See Rule of Appellate Procedure 30 (e)(3).
Following convictions in district court, Timothy Lawrence Brooks ("defendant") was tried de novo in superior court and was found guilty of driving while impaired and of driving while license revoked. He was sentenced to a minimum of ten months and a maximum of twelve months for the conviction of driving while impaired. He was sentenced to a consecutive term of 120 days for the conviction of driving while license revoked. Defendant appealed. We find no error.
The evidence tends to show that at approximately 7:25 a.m. on 26 March 2000, Trooper J.W. Crissman of the North Carolina Highway Patrol arrived at the scene of a one-vehicle accident on State Highway 1204 near Pleasant Hill, North Carolina, to find a vehicleflipped on its side, with its driver's side facing the sky. Rescue personnel were using special equipment to pry open the passenger compartment of the vehicle so they could extricate the sole occupant, defendant, from the vehicle. Defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant's eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and his speech was slurred. Defendant told rescue personnel that he had been drinking and consuming cocaine that evening.
Defendant denied that he had been operating the vehicle. He also refused to submit to a blood alcohol test. At the time of the accident, defendant's operator's license had been permanently revoked. The wrecked vehicle belonged to defendant's wife.
By his first two assignments of error, defendant contends the court erred by denying his motions to dismiss the charges for insufficient evidence. He argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that (1) he was operating the vehicle, and (2) he was impaired by an intoxicating substance.
In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference that may be drawn. State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 99, 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980). The court must decide whether substantial evidence has been presented to establish every element of the charged offense and to identify the defendant as a perpetrator. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 65-66, 296 S.E.2d 649, 651 (1982).
Where there is no direct evidence as to the essential fact involved in the issue to bepassed upon by the jury, such fact may nevertheless be inferred by the jury from facts and circumstances which they may find from the evidence. Where such inference may be reasonably drawn by the jury, and is altogether consistent with the facts and circumstances which the jury may find from the evidence, the evidence should be submitted to them; where the inference cannot be thus reasonably drawn, it should be withdrawn from the jury. State v. Weston, 197 N.C. 25, 28-29, 147 S.E. 618, 620 (1929).
If a reasonable inference of the defendant's guilt may be deduced from the evidence, then the court must deny the motion to dismiss and submit the case to the jury even though the evidence may also support inferences of innocence. State v. Alexander, 337 N.C. 182, 187, 446 S.E.2d 83, 86 (1994).
We conclude a reasonable inference may be drawn from the evidence that defendant was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. Defendant was the only occupant of the wrecked vehicle,
Page 1 2 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|