North Carolina Criminal Habitual Driving Felon Reasonable Inference Alcohol Evidence Sufficiency Concealed Weapon Lawyers Attorneys

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BRIAN ALEXANDER SCOTT

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

The State challenged an order of the Court of Appeals (North Carolina), which affirmed a trial court's dismissal of defendant's conviction for habitual driving while impaired. Defendant was indicted for DWI, habitual DWI, driving while license revoked (DWLR), carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a firearm by a felon, and being a habitual felon. The trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the conviction based on insufficiency of the evidence. Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while license revoked and was sentenced on that violation.

ISSUES:

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review in determining whether the trial court properly dismissed the habitual DWI charge, under N. C.G.S. 15A-1227(a)(3), after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty but before entry of judgment; and

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard of review in determining whether the trial court properly dismissed the habitual DWI charge, under N. C.G.S. 15A-1227(a)(3), after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty but before entry of judgment.

DISCUSSION:

The legislature did not distinguish a motion to dismiss after the return of a verdict of guilty by setting it apart in another statute. Rather, the legislature included it within N. C.G.S. 15A-1227 along with the other provisions. Parts of the same statute dealing with the same subject matter must be considered and interpreted as a whole. Upon defendant's motion for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (2) of defendant's being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied. If the evidence is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion should be allowed. The test for sufficiency of the evidence is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial or both. If the evidence presented is circumstantial, the court must consider whether a reasonable inference of defendant's guilt may be drawn from the circumstances. Once the court decides that a reasonable inference of defendant's guilt may be drawn from the circumstances, then "'it is for the jury to decide whether the facts, taken singly or in combination, satisfy [it] beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is actually guilty. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence necessary to persuade a rational juror to accept a conclusion.

A person commits the offense of impaired driving if he drives any vehicle upon any highway, any street, or any public vehicular area within this State:

(1) While under the influence of an impairing substance; or

(2) After having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.

Under the proper standard of review, substantial evidence existed for each essential element of DWI. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, the Court concluded that a reasonable inference of defendant's guilt may be drawn from the direct and circumstantial evidence presented by the State. Such evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilty. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the DWI charge.

JUDGMENT:

Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to that court for further remand to the Superior Court, Durham County. Upon remand, the trial court is to sentence defendant for the habitual DWI and may continue with any proceedings pertinent to the habitual felon charge.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

North Carolina Criminal Habitual Driving Felon Reasonable Inference Alcohol Evidence Sufficiency Concealed Weapon Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

North Carolina Criminal Impaired Driving Checkpoint Articulable Suspicion Constitutionally Permissible Lawyers Attorneys North Carolina Suppress Conclusions Checkpoint Remand Reverse Vacate Lawyers Attorneys Inventory Investing - How to Acquire In excess of The Counter Stocks and shares The Finest Spot to Commence Investing in Shares - Canada's Big 9 Financial institutions The Importance of Selecting the appropriate Divorce process Lawyer Your Guide To Retirement plan Preparing Car Wreck Lawyers – Do You Need One? Retirement Planning - Do Pensions Still Exist? Avoid the adverse effects of DWI cases by taking the assistance of an experienced DWI Lawyer The Very best Penny Shares in 2009? The Guess Operate Lastly Eliminated From Penny Inventory Investing! DWI Lawyers Who Can Help You Escape the Complex Laws Why Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer in a DUI Charge? Criminal Lawyers In Northampton - Boost Your Chances Of Walking Out Free