 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Vance4/3/1990
Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motions to dismiss at the close of the evidence. He argues that "the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support all of the elements necessary to a conviction" for second degree murder. Defendant claims the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to 1) prove that defendant was driving the Chevrolet Nova at the time of the accident, 2) prove that defendant was at fault in causing the collision, and 3) give rise to a legitimate inference of malice. We disagree.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal action, "all of the evidence favorable to the State . . . must be deemed true and considered in the light most favorable." State v. Witherspoon, 293 N.C. 321, 326, 237 S.E.2d 822, 826 (1977). Furthermore, any "discrepancies and contradictions therein are disregarded and the State is entitled to every inference of fact which may be reasonably deduced therefrom." Id. Evidence presented in the case before us tends to show 1) the car involved in the accident was defendant's car to drive, 2) defendant was driving the car when he and Bobby Caddell left Bobby Lee Jarvis' house only 15 minutes before the collision occurred, and 3) the passenger side of the Nova had the most extensive damage and Bobby Caddell, rather than defendant, was thrown from the vehicle and died from injuries sustained in the crash. Such evidence was sufficient to give rise to an inference that defendant was driving the Nova at the time of the collision. Evidence in the record also supports the inference that defendant was at fault regarding the collision in that 1) his blood alcohol level was still over the legal limit two and one-half hours after the time of the accident, 2) the point of impact was in the westbound lane where defendant had been traveling east, and 3) there was a strong smell of alcohol noticed on defendant's breath at the scene of the accident. With respect to the existence of malice in the present case, defendant's argument again has no merit. In legal terms, "malice is not restricted to spite or enmity toward a particular person. It also denotes a wrongful act intentionally done without just cause or excuse [which demonstrates] . . . a willful disregard of the rights of others." State v. Wilkerson, 295 N.C. 559, 578, 247 S.E.2d 905, 916 (1978) (quoting State v. Wrenn, 279 N.C. 676, 686, 185 S.E.2d 129, 135 (1971) (Sharp, J., dissenting)). The evidence presented suggests that defendant drove his vehicle while intoxicated, at night, and at a high rate of speed. Such evidence is sufficient to support the inference that defendant acted with a "willful disregard of the rights of others."
Defendant next argues that the common law "year and a day rule" required dismissal of the case against him. He relies on State v. Hefler, 310 N.C. 135, 310 S.E.2d 310 (1984), as support for the proposition that the "year and a day rule" still applies to murder cases. The Court in Hefler declined to extend the rule to bar prosecution for manslaughter but expressed no opinion as to its application in murder prosecutions. Defendant therefore concludes
that the rule still applies in cases like the one now before this Court. The common law "year and a day rule" purports to bar a prosecution for a person's death where death actually occurs more than a year and a day after the time of the injuries inflicted by the defendant. The rationale for this rule was that causation was less certain when the victim's death occurred so long after the defen
Page 1 2 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|