 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Carrington4/2/1985
it must, at least, "state every category of prior convictions supported by the evidence so that the jury will know that the limiting instruction applies to all the prior convictions contained in the record." Id. at 283, 283 S.E.2d at 408. In the case sub judice, the two offenses mentioned in the trial court's instructions to the jury were traffic offenses: driving under the influence and driving while license revoked. The convictions contained in the defendant's driving record were also traffic offenses. Thus, the category encompassing all of the defendant's prior convictions was dealt with as required in the trial court's instructions to the jury.
As his final assignment of error, the defendant asserts that the trial court improperly expressed his opinion to the jury regarding whether the State had met its burden of proof on two elements of the crime of driving while license revoked. The trial judge instructed the jury as follows:
Now, I charge that for you to find the defendant guilty of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while his driver's license was permanently revoked, the State must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant drove a motor vehicle. A 1977 Chevrolet is a motor vehicle.
Second, that he drove the motor vehicle on a public highway. Lancaster Street in Durham is a public highway ; and . . . . (Emphasis added.)
The defendant contends that the trial judge committed prejudicial error when he stated that a 1977 Chevrolet is a motor vehicle and that Lancaster Street is a public highway. Again, the defendant did not object to this portion of the instruction at trial. In any event, we hold that the trial court's statements did not constitute an improper expression of an opinion, but were merely statements of fact which could have been judicially noticed, which would have alleviated the State's burden of producing evidence to establish these facts. See generally, State v. Painter, 261 N.C. 332, 134 S.E.2d 638 (1964); State v. Davis, 20 N.C. App. 252, 201 S.E.2d 198 (1973). As stated in State v. Vick, 213 N.C. 235, 238, 195 S.E. 779, 781 (1938), "justice does not require that courts profess to be more ignorant than the rest of mankind." This assignment of error is overruled.
For the reasons stated above, we hold the defendant's trial was free of prejudicial error.
No error.
Disposition
No error.
|