 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Walden10/18/2005
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
"The doctrine of possession of recently stolen goods as recognized by our Courts affords evidence that the possessor is guilty of larceny." State v. Tucker, 14 N.C. App. 605, 607, 188 S.E.2d 555, 557 (1972). Because in this case, the jury instructions on the doctrine of recent possession were only an evidentiary circumstance to be considered by the jury along with all other circumstances, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to dismiss. We also hold that the State submitted substantial evidence to support each element of the offenses of felonious larceny of a motor vehicle, driving while impaired, and driving while license revoked. Defendant Maude F. Walden was charged with felonious larceny of a motor vehicle, driving while impaired, and driving while license revoked. The State's evidence tended to show that at about 1:15 a.m. on 30 September 2003, Michael Guin awoke at his home to the sound of his truck being started. Guin called 911. Guin did not give his consent to allow anyone other than himself to use his truck, and testified that the value of the truck on 30 September 2003, was more than $1000.
Officer J. E. Paysour of the Gaston County Police Department responded to Guin's 911 call. At Guin's residence, Officer Paysour obtained make, model, and tag number information for the missing vehicle and communicated that information to the county communication system, which transmits information to police officers who are on patrol in Gaston County.
At about 2:10 a.m., after hearing information about the stolen vehicle on his police radio, Officer John Holloman of the Gaston County Police Department saw a truck that fit the description of Guin's stolen truck and proceeded to follow it. Officer Holloman confirmed with Officer Paysour that the truck he was following was the identical make, model, and color, and had the same tag number as Guin's stolen truck. Officer Holloman followed the vehicle for about a mile, at which time the officer noticed that the truck stopped at a green light for about five seconds. Officer Holloman noticed the driver of the truck did not use a turn signal when it made a turn, and was driving five to ten miles above the posted speed limit on a "curvy" road. Officer Holloman attempted to stop the truck by activating the blue lights on his vehicle. Once his blue lights were activated, the truck made a wide right turn, narrowly missing an oncoming police patrol car. Shortly thereafter, the truck stopped. Throughout the pursuit, Officer Holloman maintained visual contact with the only two people he observed in the truck and "saw that neither occupant switched place " but "stayed in their . . . respective seats the whole time."
After the truck stopped, the driver, who Officer Holloman identified as Defendant, exited the vehicle. The officer noted that when getting out of the truck, Defendant stumbled and fell against the truck door. The officer also noticed that Defendant had difficulty understanding his verbal commands. For example, initially, Defendant did not comply with Officer Holloman's command to walk backwards towards him and she failed to place the truck keys on the ground, as instructed. Defendant finally did walk back to the officer, and she was taken into custody.
Thereafter, Officer Holloman approached the vehicle to confirm that there was only one passenger in the truck, at which time he detected "an odor of alcohol inside the vehic
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.
|
|