{
  "id": 11298447,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES DEXTER DEESE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Deese",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7416SC276",
  "first_page": "1",
  "last_page": "3",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 1"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 5059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "sha256": "e5ac542689c450496b3df41f7b3ffff3694ffdd34bcccb6235748a8b9bc17c06",
    "simhash": "1:f96fb0c4c7b038bd",
    "word_count": 858
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES DEXTER DEESE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nThe only evidence in this case is that offered by the State. The theory of the State\u2019s case is that defendant was culpably negligent in the operation of his automobile. Presumably, the further theory of the State\u2019s case is that defendant\u2019s culpable negligence was in some manner the proximate cause of the death of Claudie D. Lowery. It appears that the evidence makes out a case of culpable negligence against defendant in the operation of his automobile, but we are unable to find from the evidence that decedent\u2019s death is connected in any way with the manner in which defendant operated his automobile.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show that defendant was observed as he got into his Ford Maverick on the driver\u2019s side and drove away from a service station. The record is silent as to whether anyone was in defendant\u2019s automobile other than defendant. Defendant was observed driving away from the service station, accelerating to a high speed, and disappearing around a curve in the highway. The evidence tends to show that the curve was to the right in the direction in which defendant was traveling. From testimony describing skid marks, the evidence tends to show that defendant\u2019s Ford Maverick ran off the left side of the paved portion of the road, pulled back into the paved portion and then off the right side of the paved portion, ran into a tree, and came to rest against or near the back end of a Ford Mustang. A Volkswagen was twenty to twenty-five feet in front of, and almost broadside to, the Ford Mustang. The witness who observed defendant drive away from the service station almost immediately proceeded in the same direction and, after he rounded the curve, came upon the scene of defendant\u2019s wrecked automobile. The deceased was found lying against the right front wheel of the Volkswagen.\nThe record is silent upon the question of whether the Ford Mustang and the Volkswagen were on or off the highway, or why they were in their location. Although we find nothing in the record which would prompt the trial judge to make inquiry about another accident, the following appears:\n\u201cCourt: \u2018May I ask you this, Mr. Locklear: Was the car that you saw \u2014 you said that the other man was lying beside a Volkswagen. Was that the car that had been in the wreck of another car ?\u2019\n\u201cWitness : \u2018That was the car in the wreck.\u2019\n\u201cCourt: \u2018The car in the wreck was the Volkswagen?\u2019\n\u201cWitness : \u2018Yes, sir.\u2019 \u201d\nImmediately thereafter the following appears:\n\u201cCourt: \u2018The car you say the defendant got into was a Volkswagen, the one he was driving?\u2019\n\u201cWitness: \u2018No. It was a Maverick.\u2019\n\u201cCourt: \u2018Maverick. And you said the man was lying next to a Volkswagen?\u2019\n\u201cWitness: \u2018Dexter was lying inside of his car, and the other fellow was lying up on the front of a Volkswagen.\u2019\n\u201cCourt : \u2018A different car than the one that Dexter had been driving?\u2019\n\u201cWitness: \u2018Yes, sir.\u2019\n\u201cCourt : T see. All right. Thank you.\u2019 \u201d\nFrom this bit of testimony, an inference arises that the Ford Mustang and the Volkswagen had been involved in a collision before the defendant\u2019s Ford Maverick went out of control.\nThe picture of the scene as presented by the testimony and by the photographs shows defendant\u2019s severely damaged Ford Maverick resting near or against the rear of a Ford Mustang, and a Volkswagen which had been involved in an accident, sitting twenty to twenty-five feet in front of and almost perpendicular to the Ford Mustang. The defendant was lying \u201cinside\u201d or \u201cbeside\u201d his car, and the deceased was lying against the right front wheel of the Volkswagen.\nIn the record before us, the only suggestion that the deceased may have been a passenger in defendant\u2019s Ford Maverick, or may have been a pedestrian who was struck by defendant\u2019s car, or may have been a passenger in another car which was struck by defendant\u2019s vehicle, or may have been in any way injured as a proximate result of the operation of defendant\u2019s Ford Maverick, is found in the allegations of the warrant and the bill of indictment. Obviously, these allegations have no part in making out a case against defendant.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.\nReversed.\nJudges Parker and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General League, for the State.",
      "C. Christopher Smith for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES DEXTER DEESE\nNo. 7416SC276\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 113\u2014 manslaughter \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence in a manslaughter case was insufficient to be submitted to the jury where it tended to show that defendant drove his vehicle in a culpably negligent manner, but it did not show that decedent\u2019s death was connected in any way with the manner in which defendant operated his automobile.\nAppeal by defendant from McKinnon, Judge, 13 November 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Robeson County. Argued in the Court of Appeals 8 May 1974.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the felony of manslaughter. From a verdict of guilty, and judgment of imprisonment entered thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General League, for the State.\nC. Christopher Smith for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0001-01",
  "first_page_order": 33,
  "last_page_order": 35
}
