 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Carrington4/2/1985
The jury convicted Walter Leon Carrington of driving while his driver's license was permanently revoked and failing to give required information after an accident or collision involving property damage. The defendant's assignments of error on appeal concern the admission of evidence, the denial of his motions to dismiss, jury instructions, and an alleged improper expression of opinion by the trial judge. Having reviewed the defendant's contentions, we hold that the defendant's trial was free of prejudicial error. The facts follow.
On 31 March 1983, at approximately 9:40 p.m., Thomas Leroy Williams, Jr., was at his home on Lancaster Street when he heard what sounded like a car hitting another car. Williams rushed to his front door and saw the defendant in a silver and burgundy Chevrolet making a U-turn at an intersection about twenty feet away. Williams followed the car down the street, but turned back toward his home when he lost sight of the automobile. Upon his return home, he then saw the silver and burgundy Chevrolet parked on Lancaster Street. Williams went into a house on Lancaster Street where people gather to socialize and found the defendant. Williams called Officer Ervin Roberts. At trial, Williams stated that his car had been damaged in the amount of $1,100.00. He also testified that he found a piece of plastic chrome lying by his left rear wheel and that Officer Roberts took it as evidence.
Officer Roberts of the Durham Public Safety testified that he responded to the call on 31 March 1983 concerning the hit and run collision on Lancaster Street. Officer Roberts met Williams at the scene and obtained from Williams the license number of the silver and burgundy car Williams had seen. He later determined that the car was registered to the defendant and his wife, Lois Carrington. Officer Roberts also testified that Williams gave him a piece of plastic chrome and that when he applied the piece of chrome to the right front quarter of the silver and burgundy car where a piece of chrome was missing, "it fit like a puzzle." Officer Roberts further stated that the defendant's license had been permanently revoked in 1981 according to the certified copy of the defendant's driving record admitted into evidence.
The defendant admitted at trial that his license had been revoked but stated that he did not drive his car at any time. The defendant testified that on the evening of 31 March 1983 he rode with his wife to a friend's house, then walked to the house where he was found on Lancaster Street and remained there until he was arrested by Officer Roberts.
On appeal, the defendant first contests the admission of Officer Roberts' testimony regarding the results of what the defendant terms as a "test or experiment" conducted on the defendant's car with the piece of plastic chrome. Officer Roberts testified that he took a piece of plastic chrome that Williams had found beside his car, attempted to match it to a damaged portion of the defendant's car headlight rim, and found that the two edges "fit like a puzzle." The defendant contends that this testimony was improperly admitted opinion evidence because Roberts had never been qualified as an expert in the field of physics or metallurgy.
We disagree that Roberts' testimony constituted opinion evidence which required, in order to be admitted, that he be better qualified than the jury to draw inferences from the facts. State v. Siler, 66 N.C. App. 165, 311 S.E.2d 23, modified on other grounds and affirmed, 310 N.C. 731, 314 S.E.2d 547 (1984). In the first place, Roberts' testimony was based on his personal knowledge and conc
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.
|
|