{
  "id": 8549340,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARROLL DON HELMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Helms",
  "decision_date": "1972-09-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7222SC630",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 162"
    }
  ],
  "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": "160 S.E. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550346
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573790
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0509-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 359,
    "char_count": 6084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20587513017168182
    },
    "sha256": "5dda7f7ec8760ec7a5cd085eb1c12397f9ce8ffe8cc7b30cfd10611ff8ec7dee",
    "simhash": "1:5ee3251747111a0b",
    "word_count": 1009
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARROLL DON HELMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns error to the overruling of his motion for a continuance. It is well settled that a motion for continuance is ordinarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and that his ruling thereon is not subject to review absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Moses, 272 N.C. 509, 158 S.E. 2d 617. No abuse of discretion has been shown in the present case, nor does the record support defendant\u2019s contention that by overruling the motion defendant was in any way deprived of effective assistance of counsel or that his constitutional right to a fair trial was in any way impaired. Defendant was represented at his trial by counsel of his own choosing employed by him some three weeks prior to the date his trial commenced, and the record discloses that the counsel understood at that time the date when defendant\u2019s cases were calendared for trial.\nThere was ample evidence to sustain the jury\u2019s verdict, and defendant\u2019s motions for nonsuit were properly overruled. The State\u2019s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to it, tended to show: Defendant\u2019s automobile, traveling at a high speed at night on an 18-foot-wide road, crashed into an automobile and a truck which were parked along the side of the road while a flat tire on the automobile was being changed. The collision resulted in the deaths of four persons, including defendant\u2019s sister who was riding with him in his automobile. Immediately following the crash, defendant and his sister were found lying outside of his automobile. Analysis of a sample of blood taken from defendant at the hospital after the crash revealed an alcoholic content of .19 percent. When defendant regained consciousness some weeks following the crash, he stated to the investigating highway patrolman that he had been the driver of his automobile when the collision occurred. This statement was made by the defendant after he had been fully advised by the patrolman of his constitutional rights and had voluntarily waived those rights.\nDefendant cites the rule, followed in this State, that an extrajudicial confession, standing alone, cannot be used to prove the commission of a crime but that there must also be independent proof of the corpus delicti. This rule has no application to the present case. \u201cThe corpus delicti in criminal homicide involves two elements: (1) The fact of the death. (2) The existence of the criminal agency of another as the cause of death.\u201d 41 C.J.S., Homicide, \u00a7 312, p. 5; State v. Hamilton, 1 N.C. App. 99, 160 S.E. 2d 79. There was here ample evidence aliunde the statement made by defendant to the patrolman to establish the corpus delicti.\nThe court\u2019s charge to the jury, considered as a whole, was free from prejudicial error. In defendant\u2019s trial and in the judgment appealed from we find\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by D&puty Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.",
      "Sower, Avery & Crosswhite by William E. Crosswhite for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARROLL DON HELMS\nNo. 7222SC630\n(Filed 20 September 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 91\u2014 denial of motion for continuance \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for continuance where defendant was represented by counsel employed some three weeks before the commencement of his trial and the counsel knew the date when defendant\u2019s cases were calendared for trial.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 manslaughter \u2014 sufficiency of evidence to withstand nonsuit\nIn a prosecution for manslaughter and for operating a vehicle upon the highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to withstand motion for nonsuit where it tended to show that defendant\u2019s automobile was traveling at a high speed at night on an 18-foot-wide road, that it crashed into an automobile and truck parked on the side of the road, that four persons were killed, including defendant\u2019s sister who was riding with him in his automobile, that both defendant and his sister were thrown from the vehicle, that analysis of defendant\u2019s blood sample taken after the crash showed an alcoholic content of .19% and that defendant stated that he was the driver of his vehicle.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 extra-judicial confession \u2014 independent proof of corpus delicti \u2014 sufficiency of evidence aliunde confession\nThe rule that an extra-judicial confession, standing alone, cannot be used to prove the commission of a crime but that there must also be independent proof of the corpus delicti had no application in a manslaughter prosecution where there was ample evidence aliunde the statement made by defendant to a patrolman that he was the driver of his car at the time of the accident to establish the commission of the crime.\nOn Certiorari to review judgment of Kivett, Judge, 31 January 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Iredell County.\nBy four separate bills of indictment defendant was charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. By warrant defendant was also charged with driving a vehicle upon a highway within this State while he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, this being a second offense. All cases arose out of the same automobile collision which occurred on the night of 2 April 1971 and which resulted in the deaths of four persons. Defendant was first tried and convicted in the district court of the misdemeanor charge contained in the warrant. He appealed to the superior court for trial de novo. In the superior court all cases were consolidated for trial and defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges. He was found guilty in all cases, which were then consolidated for purposes of judgment. Because of illness of the trial judge, prayer for judgment was continued until 27 March 1972, when judgment was entered sentencing defendant to prison for a term of not less than five nor more than ten years. Defendant gave notice of appeal but failed to docket the record on appeal in apt time. This Court granted his petition for certiorari.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by D&puty Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.\nSower, Avery & Crosswhite by William E. Crosswhite for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 186,
  "last_page_order": 189
}