{
  "id": 8551087,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE LOCKLEAR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Locklear",
  "decision_date": "1970-04-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7016SC166",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "497",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 493"
    }
  ],
  "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": "142 S.E. 2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574513
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 844",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625810
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0716-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 513,
    "char_count": 10063,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.69474222682048e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8926400728382234
    },
    "sha256": "473ba439f3acc4219963a7c7bb77cafc186079005f4c49d3625722a10516a49c",
    "simhash": "1:06e3780754928650",
    "word_count": 1692
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:53.911218+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and HedeicK, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE LOCKLEAR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, J.\nDefendant contends his motion for nonsuit should have been allowed because the State failed to show any causal connection between the wreck and the injuries which caused the death of the deceased. We find no merit in this contention.\nTo warrant conviction in a homicide case it is, of course, necessary that the State produce evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased proximately resulted from the defendant\u2019s unlawful act. State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E. 2d 844. It is equally well established, however, that in passing upon a motion for nonsuit in a criminal case, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give the State benefit of every reasonable inference which may be legitimately drawn therefrom. State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469. If when so considered there is substantial evidence, whether direct, circumstantial, or both, of all material elements of the offense charged, then the motion for nonsuit must be denied and it is then for the jury to determine whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431.\nIn the present case there was no direct evidence that the deceased received any injuries as a result of the wreck. Two doctors who examined him after the wreck and before his death failed to discover his injuries, which were only revealed by the autopsy made on the following day. There was, however, testimony that prior to the wreck he was a normal and healthy person and had not received any type of injury. There was also testimony that he received no injury during the six and one-half hours which intervened between the wreck and his death. From this evidence a legitimate inference may be reasonably drawn that the deceased received the injuries which caused his death as a result of the automobile wreck. Indeed, on the evidence in this case it would strain credulity to find otherwise. There was ample evidence to support a jury finding that the wreck was caused by defendant\u2019s culpable negligence in driving at a high rate of speed and while intoxicated. State v. Lindsey, 264 N.C. 588, 142 S.E. 2d 355. There was no error in overruling the motion for nonsuit.\nAt the trial Romulus Sampson, a brother of the deceased, testified that while he and defendant were seated in the patrol car at the scene of the wreck and while the officers were still investigating the accident, he had told an officer that defendant was the driver. Prior to giving this testimony, the witness had already testified at some length concerning the events leading up to the wreck, in the course of which he had unequivocally stated from the witness stand that defendant was the driver. On cross-examination he repeated this testimony. Under the circumstances we find no prejudicial error in allowing him to testify on direct examination to his prior consistent statement made to the officer shortly after the wreck occurred. Nothing in the record suggests that any contention or argument was made to the jury that, because defendant was present in the patrol car when the statement was made, they might consider his lack of response as an implied admission.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error brought forward in his brief relate to the court\u2019s charge to the jury. We have examined these carefully and are of opinion that, considering the charge as a whole and contextuially, the court properly and adequately declared and explained the law arising on the evidence in this case and properly complied with the requirements of G.S. 1-180.\nIn the trial we find\nNo error.\nCampbell and HedeicK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.",
      "J. H. Barrington, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE LOCKLEAR\nNo. 7016SC166\n(Filed 1 April 1970)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 cause of death \u2014 sufficiency of proof\nTo warrant conviction in a homicide case, it is necessary that the State produce evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of deceased proximately resulted from defendant\u2019s unlawful act.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 104, 106\u2014 nonsuit \u2014 consideration of evidence \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn passing upon a motion to nonsuit in a criminal case, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give the State benefit of every reasonable inference which may be legitimately drawn therefrom; and if when so considered there is substantial evidence, whether direct, circumstantial, or both, of all material elements of the offense charged, then the motion for nonsuit must be denied.\ng. Homicide \u00a7 21; Automobiles \u00a7 113\u2014 manslaughter \u2014 automobile wreck \u2014 proximate cause of death \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a manslaughter prosecution arising out of an automobile wreck, the State\u2019s evidence permitted a legitimate inference that the deceased died from injuries received in the wreck, where there was testimony that prior to the wreck the deceased was a normal and healthy person and had not received any type of injury, that he received no injury during the six and one-balf hours which intervened between the wreck and his death, and that an autopsy of deceased revealed that he died from multiple rib fractures with subsequent internal hemorrhage.\n4. Automobiles \u00a7 113\u2014 manslaughter \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\n-In a manslaughter prosecution arising out of an automobile wreck, the State\u2019s evidence held sufficient to support a jury finding that the wreck was caused by defendant\u2019s culpable negligence in driving at a high rate of speed and while intoxicated.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 77; Automobiles \u00a7 112\u2014 manslaughter \u2014 identity of driver of car \u2014 competency of evidence \u2014 prejudice to defendant\nIn a manslaughter prosecution arising out of an automobile wreck, testimony by deceased\u2019s brother that he told the investigating officer, while he and defendant were sitting in the officer\u2019s car at the scene of the wreck, that defendant was the driver of the car in which the deceased received his fatal injuries, held admissible and not prejudicial to defendant, there being no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the jury might consider his lack of response to the brother\u2019s statement as an implied admission.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, J., September 1969 Session of RobesoN Superior Court.\nDefendant was indicted for manslaughter in connection with the death of James Dallie Sampson from injuries sustained in a single-car automobile wreck. The wreck occurred at approximately 2:30 p.m. on 16 November 1968 on a rural paved road three miles west of Lumberton. When the investigating officers arrived, they found the automobile registered in the name of defendant overturned and lying on its top off of a curve on the right side of the road at an angle to a road ditch and about nine feet from the paved portion of the highway. Uninterrupted skid marks led for a distance of 168 feet from the left side of the road in the curve over to the right side, and deep cuts in the shoulder of the road led from these skid marks an additional 30 feet directly to the overturned car. The officers found James Dallie Sampson lying face down in the ditch beside the car, not moving or making any sound. A bottle of non-tax-paid whiskey was found under his body.\nDefendant was lying in some weeds 25 or 30 feet from the car. The officers smelled the odor of some intoxicating beverage about his person. When defendant attempted to walk, he was unsteady on his feet and fell down twice. His eyes were red and glassy, his face was flushed, his speech was slurred, and in the opinion of the officers defendant was highly intoxicated.\nThe officers also observed two other men at the scene. One of these, Romulus Sampson, a brother of James Dallie Sampson, testified at the trial that the four men, together with another who had left the scene before the officers arrived, had been together, riding in defendant\u2019s car, from 10 o\u2019clock in the morning until the time of the wreck; that during this time the occupants of the car had drunk about three pints of white whiskey; that defendant was driving the car, traveling about sixty or sixty-five, when it entered the curve on which it left the road and turned over. Counsel for defendant stipulated that a breathalyzer test administered to defendant on 16 November 1968 after the fatal accident, by a licensed operator according to rules and regulations promulgated by the North Carolina Department of Health, produced a reading of .30 percent of alcohol in defendant\u2019s blood.\nJames Dallie Sampson was taken by ambulance from the scene of the wreck to the hospital at Lumberton, where he was examined by a doctor. After the doctor had advised that nothing was wrong and that he should be taken to jail to sober up, he was taken by patrol car to the county jail and was charged with public drunkenness. He was laid on his back on the cell floor and did not move. About 6:30 p.m. an ambulance was called, and James Dallie Sampson was returned to the hospital, where he was admitted to the emergency room and again examined by a doctor. The doctor told members of his family to take him home. They took him by automobile approximately six and one-half miles to his home, arriving at 9:15 p.m. It was then discovered that he was dead.\nThe pathologist who performed an autopsy on the following day testified that in his opinion the deceased died from multiple rib fractures with subsequent internal hemorrhage. The deceased\u2019s brother testified that prior to the collision he was a normal and healthy person and had not received any type of injury. The ambulance driver, officers, jailer, and other witnesses who had been with him between the time of the collision and the time of his death testified that the deceased had received no injury during that period.\nDefendant was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. From judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than four nor more than six years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.\nJ. H. Barrington, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 515,
  "last_page_order": 519
}