State v. . Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Brown

40 S.E.2d 34, 226 N.C. 681, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 312

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 6, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 40 S.E.2d 34 (State v. . Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Brown, 40 S.E.2d 34, 226 N.C. 681, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 312 (N.C. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Devon, J.

The State’s evidence disclosed that the witness Smith was struck and his hip and leg broken by a speeding automobile driven by the defendant, and that the defendant did not stop at the scene of the accident or give his name, address and license number as required by the statute, Gr. S., 20-166. The place where the accident occurred was on the highway near Liberty, North Carolina. The defendant admitted that he knew he had hit a man and did not stop or return to the scene, but did *682 stop at a store 200 yards away and “got Mr. Moore (Murray) to take tbe injured man to Liberty.” Defendant testified tbat be went borne and bid because be was scared.

Tbe defendant excepted to tbe exclusion of testimony as to bis effort to obtain assistance for tbe injured man, but tbe substance of tbis evidence seems to bave been admitted without objection. S. v. Elder, 217 N. C., 111, 6 S. E. (2d), 840. In any event we tbink tbe evidence was immaterial on tbe issue of bis guilt or innocence of tbe offense charged.

Tbe defendant also brought forward in bis appeal a single paragraph of tbe judge’s charge to which be noted exception. As tbe remainder of tbe charge does not appear, it is presumed tbe court charged tbe law correctly. S. v. Hargrove, 216 N. C., 570, 5 S. E. (2d), 852; S. v. Jones, 182 N. C., 781, 108 S. E., 376. Nor do we find prejudicial error in tbe portion excepted to.

The defendant relies upon bis good faith after the accident in obtaining aid for the injured man, but tbis humane action cannot be held to relieve the defendant, if as a matter of fact be bad violated the statute. the statute not only required the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident to stop at the scene of the accident, but also, when the accident results in injury to any person, the driver is required to give bis name, address, operator’s license and the registration number of bis vehicle, and to render reasonable assistance to the injured person. S. v. King, 219 N. C., 667, 14 S. E. (2d), 803. It is apparent tbat on bis own testimony the defendant has violated the provisions of tbis statute. G. S., 20-166 (c).

Tbe subsequent action of the defendant was a matter for the consideration of tbe court in entering judgment.

In the trial we find

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Devon, J.

The State’s evidence disclosed that the witness Smith was struck and his hip and leg broken by a speeding automobile driven by the defendant, and that the defendant did not stop at the scene of the accident or give his name, address and license number as required by the statute, Gr. S., 20-166. The place where the accident occurred was on the highway near Liberty, North Carolina. The defendant admitted that he knew he had hit a man and did not stop or return to the scene, but did *682 stop at a store 200 yards away and “got Mr. Moore (Murray) to take tbe injured man to Liberty.” Defendant testified tbat be went borne and bid because be was scared.

Tbe defendant excepted to tbe exclusion of testimony as to bis effort to obtain assistance for tbe injured man, but tbe substance of tbis evidence seems to bave been admitted without objection. S. v. Elder, 217 N. C., 111, 6 S. E. (2d), 840. In any event we tbink tbe evidence was immaterial on tbe issue of bis guilt or innocence of tbe offense charged.

Tbe defendant also brought forward in bis appeal a single paragraph of tbe judge’s charge to which be noted exception. As tbe remainder of tbe charge does not appear, it is presumed tbe court charged tbe law correctly. S. v. Hargrove, 216 N. C., 570, 5 S. E. (2d), 852; S. v. Jones, 182 N. C., 781, 108 S. E., 376. Nor do we find prejudicial error in tbe portion excepted to.

The defendant relies upon bis good faith after the accident in obtaining aid for the injured man, but tbis humane action cannot be held to relieve the defendant, if as a matter of fact be bad violated the statute. the statute not only required the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident to stop at the scene of the accident, but also, when the accident results in injury to any person, the driver is required to give bis name, address, operator’s license and the registration number of bis vehicle, and to render reasonable assistance to the injured person. S. v. King, 219 N. C., 667, 14 S. E. (2d), 803. It is apparent tbat on bis own testimony the defendant has violated the provisions of tbis statute. G. S., 20-166 (c).

Tbe subsequent action of the defendant was a matter for the consideration of tbe court in entering judgment.

In the trial we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 S.E.2d 34, 226 N.C. 681, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-nc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack