 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Verrett10/4/2005
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
Defendant appeals his 25 June 2004 conviction for second degree murder, driving while license revoked, reckless driving, and driving while impaired. For the reasons stated herein, we find no error.
The State's evidence tended to show the following: On 5 October 2002, defendant and his girlfriend, Susan Neville ("Neville"), went to Donald and Rebecca Franz's house. Defendant drank six or eight beers from about 2:30 p.m. to about 7:00 p.m. while at the Franz residence. Around 7:30 p.m., defendant and Neville left the Franz residence to go to defendant's home. Defendant drove Neville's Lincoln Continental car east on Highway N.C. 279, a two lane highway divided by double yellow lines. Shortly after 8:00 p.m., defendant lost control of the vehicle on N.C. 279 slightly west of Pruitts Chapel Road. The vehicle slid onto the westbound lane, slid back onto the eastbound lane, fell off the shoulder into an embankment, flipped several times, and landed on its roof. The car created 347 feet of "yaw" marks that extended from the eastbound lane into the westbound lane, back into the eastbound lane, and finally on to the area of the shoulder. North Carolina State Troopers T. W. Humphries ("Trooper Humphries") and H. L. Miller, Jr. ("Trooper Miller") testified that the "yaw" marks, unlike skid marks, are made when a vehicle is not braking.
Neville died at the scene. Defendant suffered injuries, including cuts to his face and other parts of his body. In a statement to Trooper Miller, defendant claimed that he lost control of the vehicle because a black dog ran in front of him as they traveled at about forty-five m.p.h. in the fifty-five m.p.h. zone. An investigation, however, indicated the car was going about 100 m.p.h in the fifty-five m.p.h. zone. At the scene, Trooper Miller noticed "a strong odor of alcohol" coming from defendant's breath and asked him to take an Alco-sensor test. Defendant refused. The EMS subsequently transported defendant to a hospital.
At the hospital, Trooper Miller observed defendant's slurred speech and believed defendant "consume a sufficient quantity" of alcohol "to appreciably impair both his mental and physical faculties." In turn, Trooper Miller requested defendant submit to a blood test to determine his blood alcohol concentration. Defendant refused again, but Trooper Humphries obtained a searchwarrant to draw blood from defendant. Hospital personnel drew blood from defendant at 12:05 a.m. on 6 October 2002, and the analysis of the blood found a blood alcohol concentration of "0.20 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of whole blood."
The State introduced evidence which showed defendant's driving license was suspended and that the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles had sent eight letters to defendant reminding defendant that his license was revoked. The State also showed that defendant received at least two prior convictions of driving with a suspended license and at least one prior conviction of the following offenses: careless driving, driving under the influence of an impairing substance, driving with no insurance, driving while impaired, second degree burglary, and assault on a female. Furthermore, at the time of trial, defendant had charges pending for two driving while impaired offenses from 2001, at least one driving while license revoked charge, and one having a fictitious registration plate charge.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. Def
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.
|
|