State v. Griggs

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Griggs

218 S.E.2d 200, 27 N.C. App. 159, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1778

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 1, 1975

DocketNo. 7519SC481

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 S.E.2d 200 (State v. Griggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Griggs, 218 S.E.2d 200, 27 N.C. App. 159, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1778 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

There was ample evidence to warrant submitting the case to the jury. Not only was there strong circumstantial evidence that defendant drove his car upon the highway at a time when he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, see State v. Haddock, 254 N.C. 162, 118 S.E. 2d 411 (1961), but there was here evidence that when arrested defendant admitted to the patrolman that he had driven his car to the location where it was found parked partly on the paved portion of the highway and that after stopping the car he did not have anything to drink. In his testimony at trial defendant admitted that when arrested he was drunk. There was no error in submitting the case to the jury.

However, for error in the charge there must be a new trial. The three elements of the offense with which defendant was charged are: (1) driving or operating a vehicle, (2) upon a highway (or public vehicular area) within this State, (3) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G.S. 20-138 (a) ; State v. Kellum, 273 N.C. 348, 160 S.E. 2d 76 (1968) ; State v. Haddock, supra. In charging the jury, the trial judge failed to require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense in this case was committed upon a highway. Failure to so instruct the jury was prejudicial error entitling defendant to [162]*162a new trial. See State v. Springs, 26 N.C. App. 757, 217 S.E. 2d 200 (1975).

New trial.

Judges Britt and Clark concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

There was ample evidence to warrant submitting the case to the jury. Not only was there strong circumstantial evidence that defendant drove his car upon the highway at a time when he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, see State v. Haddock, 254 N.C. 162, 118 S.E. 2d 411 (1961), but there was here evidence that when arrested defendant admitted to the patrolman that he had driven his car to the location where it was found parked partly on the paved portion of the highway and that after stopping the car he did not have anything to drink. In his testimony at trial defendant admitted that when arrested he was drunk. There was no error in submitting the case to the jury.

However, for error in the charge there must be a new trial. The three elements of the offense with which defendant was charged are: (1) driving or operating a vehicle, (2) upon a highway (or public vehicular area) within this State, (3) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G.S. 20-138 (a) ; State v. Kellum, 273 N.C. 348, 160 S.E. 2d 76 (1968) ; State v. Haddock, supra. In charging the jury, the trial judge failed to require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense in this case was committed upon a highway. Failure to so instruct the jury was prejudicial error entitling defendant to [162]*162a new trial. See State v. Springs, 26 N.C. App. 757, 217 S.E. 2d 200 (1975).

New trial.

Judges Britt and Clark concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 S.E.2d 200, 27 N.C. App. 159, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-griggs-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack