 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Seagle11/21/1989
On 25 October 1987, at approximately 1:00 a.m., Officer Joe Smith of the Greensboro Police was called to the scene of a traffic accident on Summit Avenue in Greensboro. Smith found an automobile in a ditch on the side of the road with fresh blood and dirt in the interior. There were no persons present at the scene when Smith arrived. He radioed in the registration plate number of the vehicle and learned that it was registered to Albert Dale Seagle.
Officer Frank Young was patrolling near the scene of the accident and overheard Officer Smith's radio transmission. Young observed two white males walking along the roadside on Summit, and he stopped and asked the two men what happened. Officer Young testified at the suppression hearing that the two men appeared to have red dirt all over them.
When asked what happened, both men responded that they had been in an accident. Officer Young asked for their driver's licenses and radioed Officer Smith to advise him of what had occurred. Defendant had blood on his shirt and one of his arms, and Officer Young asked defendant if he needed medical assistance, which he declined.
Approximately ten or fifteen minutes later, Officer Smith, accompanied by Officer Johnson, arrived at the place where Young and the two men were. Officer Smith questioned the men and asked why they had left the scene of the accident. Defendant stated that he had gone to a convenience store to call his parents. Smith also asked the two men who had been driving, and defendant replied that it was he.
As Officer Smith was questioning defendant, Smith detected the odor of alcohol about defendant. Smith requested defendant to perform a few sobriety tests, and after defendant complied he was arrested for driving while impaired.
Defendant was taken to the Greensboro Police Station where he submitted to a chemical analysis of his blood. It was not until this time that defendant was advised of his Miranda rights.
Defendant pled not guilty when he was tried in district court, but he was found guilty. He then appealed to the superior court for a trial de novo. At the outset of his trial, defendant made
an oral motion to suppress any statements made by him prior to his arrest. The trial court conducted a hearing and concluded that these statements should be suppressed.
The State certified to the trial court that the suppressed statements were necessary for the trial of its case and appealed the suppression order.
First, the State argues that defendant's oral motion to suppress was not timely or properly filed. The State contends that pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-976(b), defendant failed to make his motion within ten working days of the district court judgment.
For any exception to be properly preserved for review by this Court, an objection must have been made at the trial court level. See Rule 10, N.C. Rules of App. Proc. (effective for all judgments of the trial division entered prior to 1 July 1989). Furthermore, our Supreme Court has stated that " he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [and likewise this Court] on appeal is limited to questions of law or legal inference, which, ordinarily, must be presented by objections duly entered and exceptions duly taken to the rulings of the lower court." State v. Hedrick, 289 N.C. 232, 234, 221 S.E.2d 350, 352 (1976) (quoting Gasque v. State, 271 N.C. 323, 339, 156 S.E.2d 740, 751 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1030, 20 L. Ed. 2d 288, 88 S. Ct. 1423 (1968)).
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|