 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Coker12/4/1984
Defendant's sole assignment of error is that Judge Brewer erred by reversing the district court's dismissal of the charge against him. He argues that the citation upon which he was charged failed to satisfy statutory and constitutional requirements because it did not adequately inform him of the
charge against him. Defendant complains that the citation (1) is vague and ambiguous; (2) fails to specify an impairing substance; and (3) fails to specify under which theory of driving while impaired defendant is charged.
North Carolina General Statute § 20-138.1 provides:
(a) Offense. -- A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State:
(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or
(2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.
(b) Defense Precluded. -- The fact that a person charged with violating this section is or has been legally entitled to use alcohol or a drug is not a defense to a charge under this section.
(c) Pleading. -- In any prosecution for impaired driving, the pleading is sufficient if it states the time and place of the alleged offense in the usual form and charges that the defendant drove a vehicle on a highway or public vehicular area while subject to an impairing substance.
We are of the opinion that the citation meets the statutory requirements of N.C.G.S. 20-138.1(c). However, defendant contends that the language of the statute is ambiguous in that the phrase "subject to an impairing substance" does not have precise legal import. We find defendant's citation, modeled after N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(c), complies with statutory and constitutional requirements.
The legislature has, within constitutionally mandated parameters, the power to prescribe the manner in which a criminal charge can be stated in a pleading to relieve the State of the common law requirement that every element of the offense be charged. State v. Lowe, 295 N.C. 596, 247 S.E.2d 878 (1978). An indictment or criminal charge is constitutionally sufficient if it apprises the defendant of the charge against him with enough certainty to enable him to prepare his defense and to protect him from subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The indictment
must also enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce in the event of conviction. State v. Squire, 292 N.C. 494, 234 S.E.2d 563, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 998 (1977); State v. Russell, 282 N.C. 240, 192 S.E.2d 294 (1972).
An indictment is sufficient in form for all intents and purposes if it expresses the charge in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15-153 (1983). It will not be quashed "by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill or proceeding, sufficient matter appears to enable the court to proceed to judgment." Id. It is generally held that the language in a statutorily prescribed form of criminal pleading is sufficient if the act or omission is clearly set forth so that a person of common understanding may know what is intended. 41 Am. Jur. 2d, Indictments and Informations § 68 (1968).
In determining the sufficiency of indictments, courts must look to long-established and well-known rules of law. Id. at § 70. Words having technical meanings must be construed according to such meanings.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|