 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Jones7/6/2004
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Chester Wilson Jones, Jr. ("defendant") appeals his convictions of driving while impaired and second-degree murder. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that defendant received a trial free of prejudicial error.
The State's evidence presented at trial tended to show the following: On 26 January 2001, defendant was involved in an automobile crash in which William Holt Harrington ("Harrington") was killed. Defendant was traveling south on N.C. Highway 217 when he approached Harrington, who was traveling north. As the two vehicles reached the middle of a curve, defendant's vehicle crossed the center line and struck Harrington's vehicle in the side. As aresult of the collision, defendant suffered a broken bone and lacerations. Harrington was pronounced dead on the scene.
Defendant was transported to Good Hope Hospital. Upon arriving at the hospital, defendant was examined by Dr. Neil Page ("Dr. Page"). Dr. Page noted defendant was "alert times four," or alert and oriented to person, place, time and event. Blood and urine samples were taken from defendant. While defendant's blood test results showed only a trace amount of alcohol in defendant's blood, defendant's urine sample tested positive for benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, and PCP. While at the hospital, Trooper R.A. Jones ("Trooper Jones") interviewed defendant and learned defendant's license was in a state of revocation.
On 12 February 2001, defendant was indicted for driving while license revoked, driving while impaired, and second-degree murder. During trial, the State provided expert testimony regarding defendant's urine screening and produced a drug chart detailing the impairing effects of the drugs found in defendant's urine. On 25 March 2002, the jury rendered a guilty verdict on all counts. Defendant appeals.
As an initial matter, we note that defendant's brief contains arguments supporting only ten of his original forty-eight assignments of error. Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(b)(6) (2004), the thirty-eight omitted assignments of error are deemed abandoned. Therefore, we limit our present reviewto those assignments of error properly preserved by defendant for appeal.
The issues presented on appeal are whether the trial court erred by (I) denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of second-degree murder; (II) admitting evidence regarding defendant's urine screening; (III) overruling defendant's objection to jury instructions; and (IV) denying defendant's motion to proceed pro se.
Defendant first argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge of second-degree murder. Defendant contends the State presented insufficient evidence to prove the impairment necessary to satisfy the malice requirement of second-degree murder. We disagree.
"In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a trial court must determine whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense." State v. Roddey, 110 N.C. App. 810, 812, 431 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1993). "Substantial evidence" has been defined as "the amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State v. Cox, 303 N.C. 75, 87, 277 S.E.2d 376, 384 (1981). The trial court must view all of the evidence, whether competent or incompetent, in the light most favorable to the State, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference drawn f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|