{
  "id": 8554766,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM PRESTON LESLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lesley",
  "decision_date": "1976-04-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7519SC878",
  "first_page": "169",
  "last_page": "171",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 169"
    }
  ],
  "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": 346,
    "char_count": 5530,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.686,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4388259701627392
    },
    "sha256": "818ebcfc176475c8534fa36d144b8d686b30b1c3cb2d9bd3a1309a5b64a623b3",
    "simhash": "1:ffc95d90d7c08362",
    "word_count": 911
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM PRESTON LESLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe defendant assigns as error the denial of his timely motion for judgment as of nonsuit. The State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nM. R. Lane, \u201ca uniformed officer\u201d with the Salisbury Police Department, was on duty on 29 April 1975. He was patrolling \u201c29 South,\u201d a public highway, at approximately 12:50 a.m., when he passed the old Pepsi-Cola Bottling Plant. He described the building as being unoccupied and there were \u201cfor rent\u201d and \u201cfor sale\u201d signs posted in the windows. The premises were not maintained and weeds were beginning to grow up in the yard. There was a concrete drive approximately thirty to thirty-five feet long which led from the highway to the building with a \u201crail\u201d along the side. The drive ended at a door which opened into the building. There were no signs or obstructions barring access to the drive from Highway 29. Officer Lane testified:\n\u201cThere was not any automobile there at the time. It was approximately five minutes before I came back and saw this automobile \u2014 this station wagon. That is the Pepsi-Cola Plant up here at five points.\u201d\nThe car was in the driveway leading from the road to the building. He noticed it move forward three to five feet toward the building and stop. Officer Lane appproached the automobile and found the defendant slumped down in the driver\u2019s seat. The engine was running and the headlights and backup lights were on. He asked the defendant to get out of the car which he did. There was an odor of alcohol about the defendant. He could not remove his driver\u2019s license from his wallet and had difficulty maintaining his balance. When it appeared to Lane that the defendant was intoxicated he arrested him and carried him to the police station where a breathalyzer test was performed. The defendant registered \u201cpoint twenty-three one hundredths of one percent blood alcohol.\u201d\nIn our opinion, when the foregoing evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the State it will permit the jury to find that the defendant while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage, or having an amount of alcohol in his blood exceeding .10% by weight, drove an automobile from Highway 29, a public highway, onto the premises of the abandoned Pepsi-Cola Bottling Plant where Officer Lane found him. Such findings would permit the jury to find the defendant guilty of violating G.S. 20-138 (a) or G.S. 20-138 (b). This assignment of error is overruled.\nThe defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury \u201cthat the driveway at the Pepsi-Cola company is a public vehicular area within the State.\u201d G.S. 20-4.01 defines public vehicular area as follows:\n\u201cPublic Vehicular Area. \u2014 Any drive, driveway, road, roadway, street, or alley upon the grounds and premises of any public or private hospital, college, university, school, orphanage, church, or any of the institutions maintained and supported by the State of North Carolina, or any of its subdivisions or upon the grounds and premises of any service station, drive-in theater, supermarket, store, restaurant or office building, or any other business, residential, or municipal establishment providing parking space for customers, patrons, or the public.\u201d\nThe evidence in the record before us is not sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s conclusion that the driveway leading from Highway 29 to the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Plant is a \u201cpublic vehicular area\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 20-4.01.\nIt is not necessary that we discuss defendant\u2019s additional assignments of error since they are not likely to occur at a new trial.\nFor error in the charge, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Britt and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Henry H. Burgwyn for the State.",
      "Davis, Ford and Weinhold by Robert M. Davis for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM PRESTON LESLEY\nNo. 7519SC878\n(Filed 7 April 1976)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 127\u2014 driving under the influence \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for driving under the influence, evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury where it tended to show that an officer observed a driveway leading from a public highway to an abandoned building at a time when no vehicles were there, a few minutes later the officer observed that defendant\u2019s car was in the driveway, he saw the vehicle move forward three to five feet toward the building and stop, defendant was at the wheel and appeared to be under the influence of intoxicants, and a breathalyzer test registered .23.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 122\u2014 public vehicular area \u2014 driveway to abandoned Pepsi plant \u2014 improper jury instruction\nIn a prosecution for driving under the influence, evidence was insufficient to support the trial court\u2019s instruction to the jury that a driveway from a public road to an abandoned Pepsi-Cola bottling plant was a \u201cpublic vehicular area\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 20-4.01.\nAppeal by defendant from Albright, Judge. Judgment entered 24 July 1975 in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 February 1976.\nThe defendant, William Preston Lesley, was charged in a warrant, proper in form, with operating \u201ca motor vehicle on a public street or public highway and public vehicular area while under the influence of intoxicating liquor\u201d in violation of G.S. 20-138. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty by the jury of violating G.S. 20-138 (b). From a judgment imposing a ninety-day jail sentence which was suspended for three years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Henry H. Burgwyn for the State.\nDavis, Ford and Weinhold by Robert M. Davis for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0169-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 203
}
