{
  "id": 8554384,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE JESSIE WRIGHT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1972-02-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7127SC763",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "491",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 489"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "118 S.E. 2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624823
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S.E. 2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0073-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5389,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20599019479514058
    },
    "sha256": "f91bedc4d0d1a7033effeb8ad67738ed96f55512320be4109071ede2f6e7cdfc",
    "simhash": "1:a78c88b3f36c836d",
    "word_count": 931
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE JESSIE WRIGHT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAppellant assigns error to the denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. He admits that while riding in an automobile being driven on a public highway he was intoxicated, but contends that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding he was driving. There is no merit in this contention.\n\u201cWhen a motion is made for a judgment of nonsuit or for a directed verdict of not guilty, the trial judge must determine whether there is substantial evidence of every essential element of the offense. In so far as the duty of the judge is concerned, it is immaterial whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination of both. If it is substantial as to all essential elements of the offense, it is the duty of the judge to submit the case to the jury.\u201d State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 97 S.E. 2d 444. While the State\u2019s evidence tending to show that defendant was the driver in this case was circumstantial, it was clearly such as would reasonably lead to that conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and was, in our opinion, stronger than the evidence which was held sufficient in State v. Haddock, 254 N.C. 162, 118 S.E. 2d 411. Since there was here substantial evidence of every material element of the offense with which defendant was charged, the case was properly submitted to the jury.\nWe have reviewed appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, which relate to the court\u2019s charge to the jury, and error sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial does not appear. All of appellant\u2019s assignments of error are overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray for the State.",
      "Fred A. Flowers for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EUGENE JESSIE WRIGHT\nNo. 7127SC763\n(Filed 2 February 1972)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 127\u2014 drunken driving \u2014 sufficiency of evidence that defendant was the driver\nIn this prosecution for drunken driving, the State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that defendant was the driver of an automobile where it tended to show that a police officer followed the automobile for some three blocks, that the officer \u201cwas right on the bumper of the car\u201d when he pulled it over, that the officer stopped his vehicle about 10 feet behind the automobile, that as the officer approached the automobile defendant got out of it on the driver\u2019s side and another person got out on the passenger\u2019s side, and that the officer did not see any change of drivers after the automobile stopped as defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge, 23 August 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Cleveland County.\nCriminal prosecution for driving a motor vehicle upon a highway within this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of G.S. 20-138. After trial and sentence in the district court, defendant appealed and was tried de novo in the superior court. Plea: not guilty.\nThe State presented the testimony of a police officer of the City of Kings Mountain, who testified: He had known defendant for some eight years. About 1:30 a.m. on 21 January 1971 he observed a Chevrolet automobile heading north on N. C. State Highway 216, commonly called Piedmont Avenue, in Kings Mountain, N. C. He followed this car for some three blocks and the car crossed the white line three or four times. At one time it was right in the middle of the road. The officer stopped the car, and was \u201cright on the bumper of the car\u201d when he pulled it over. The officer\u2019s car was about ten feet from the Chevrolet and directly behind it. The officer walked up to the Chevrolet, and as he did so defendant got out on the left-hand side, the driver\u2019s side, of the car and met the officer about halfway between the Chevrolet and the officer\u2019s car. Larry Hord, owner of the Chevrolet, got out of the right-hand side, which is the passenger side, of the car. Defendant had the odor of alcohol on his breath, his speech was incoherent, and he was very belligerent. In the officer\u2019s opinion, defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant was placed under arrest and taken to the police station, where he voluntarily took the breathalyzer test. The test reading was .24 percent of alcohol in the blood.\nDefendant testified and denied that he had driven the car on the night he was arrested. He testified: \u201cLarry Hord was driving the automobile and we stopped and we switched. . . . On this occasion both of us had been drinking all day and half that night. He was about as drunk as I was, close to it.\u201d\nLarry Hord, presented as a witness by defendant, testified that he, not the defendant, drove his car; that when the police car pulled its blue light and siren on, he stopped the car and \u201cthrowed it out of gear and jumped over and Gene got under the wheel.\u201d Hord testified that \u201c [t] he reasons I changed drivers was because I had a pocket full of tickets.\u201d On cross-examination he testified that he and defendant \u201chad been drinking quite a bit,\u201d that he was \u201cso drunk I can\u2019t even remember where I was going,\u201d and that he was 5 feet and 11 inches tall and weighed 216 pounds.\nIn rebuttal, the officer testified that he did not see any change of drivers.\nVerdict: guilty. From judgment imposing sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray for the State.\nFred A. Flowers for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 513,
  "last_page_order": 515
}