{ "id": 8555663, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL GOVEN GRISSOM", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grissom", "decision_date": "1973-02-14", "docket_number": "No. 7319SC178", "first_page": "374", "last_page": "375", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "17 N.C. App. 374" } ], "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": "106 S.E. 669", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N.C. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657421 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575091 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569084 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0506-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 278, "char_count": 3516, "ocr_confidence": 0.553, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1497672278218763e-07, "percentile": 0.7683652599051142 }, "sha256": "65314f7f961de039358f175ebab31abf8acd89774495d33bebc08f0c7076e1cd", "simhash": "1:b2e33b1eb0e193f8", "word_count": 592 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL GOVEN GRISSOM" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s only contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motions for nonsuit made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. Defendant offered no evidence.\nTaken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence tended to show that on 4 June 1972 at about 3:50 p.m., a five-year-old girl, Tonda Renae Blake, was playing on a swing set in the yard at 23 Flowe Street, located just outside the city limits of Concord. Flowe Street was a straight, sixteen feet wide, unpaved, dirt road in a residential area. The weather was clear and the road was dry. At this hour, at the intersection of Scotia Avenue and Flowe Street, defendant, driving a 1966 green Pontiac automobile, turned south from Scotia Avenue onto Flowe Street, went into a complete spin, then continued south on Flowe Street at a speed of approximately 50 miles per hour. Defendant\u2019s vehicle zigzagged down Flowe Street over 340 feet, at the same rate of speed, until it left the roadway, knocked down a wooden fence, damaged the swing set and struck and killed Tonda Renae Blake. Defendant\u2019s vehicle traveled a total of 32 feet from the roadway until it struck the house at number 23 Flowe Street with enough force to move the house one to one-and-one-half inches on its foundation.\nCulpable negligence from which death proximately ensues, makes the actor guilty of manslaughter, and under some circumstances, guilty of murder. State v. Colson, 262 N.C. 506, 138 S.E. 2d 121. It is such recklessness or carelessness, proximately resulting in injury or death, as imports a thoughtless disregard of consequences or a heedless indifference to the safety and rights of others. State v. Weston, 273 N.C. 275, 159 S.E. 2d 883; State v. Rountree, 181 N.C. 535, 106 S.E. 669. Speed in excess of that which is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions is unlawful notwithstanding that the speed may be less than the limits proscribed by statute. G.S. 20-141.\nThere was ample evidence to permit the jury to find that defendant operated his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed. The evidence would also have permitted the jury to find that defendant violated the reckless driving statute, G.S. 20-140. Defendant\u2019s conduct constituted a manifest display of heedless indifference to the safety of others.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Charles A. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General for the State.", "Davis, Koontz & Horton by Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHANIEL GOVEN GRISSOM\nNo. 7319SC178\n(Filed 14 February 1973)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 113 \u2014 striking child in yard \u2014 involuntary manslaughter\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter where it tended to show that defendant\u2019s automobile went into a spin as it turned onto a dirt road, that it zigzagged down the road over 340 feet at 50 mph, that it left the road, knocked down a wooden fence and struck and killed a child playing on a swing set in a yard beside the road, and that defendant\u2019s vehicle traveled a total of 32 feet from the road until it struck a house with enough force to move the house over an inch on its foundation.\nAppeal by defendant from Armstrong, Judge, 2 October 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Cabarrus County.\nDefendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to serve not less than seven nor more than ten years imprisonment.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Charles A. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nDavis, Koontz & Horton by Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0374-01", "first_page_order": 398, "last_page_order": 399 }