Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES BERNARD McDERMOTT, III
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1984-06-05
Citations: 68 N.C. App. 786
Docket Number: No. 8320SC972
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES BERNARD McDERMOTT, III
Judges: Before Judges WEBB, BECTON and EAGLES.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 786–787

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES BERNARD McDERMOTT, III
No. 8320SC972
(Filed 5 June 1984)
1. Automobiles and Other Vehicles § 113.1— death by vehicle — sufficiency of evidence
The evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for death by vehicle.
2. Criminal Law § 122.1— reading testimony to jury during deliberations
The trial court did not err in permitting the court reporter to read a portion of one witness’s testimony to the jury after the jury had retired. G.S. 15A-1233(a).
APPEAL by defendant from Seay, Judge. Judgment entered 19 May 1983 in Superior Court, MOORE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 1984.
Defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor of death by vehicle in connection with the death of Wendell Ritter. He received a sentence of eight to twelve months and appealed.
Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Marilyn R. Rich, for the State.
Seawell, Robbins, May & Rich, by P. Wayne Robbins, for defendant-appe llant.
Before Judges WEBB, BECTON and EAGLES.

Opinion:
Both defendant and the State presented evidence. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge at the close of the State's evidence and to dismiss the charge and for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. He assigns as error the trial court's denial of those motions. Defendant argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support the charge of death by vehicle. Our review of the record in this case disclosed that there was ample evidence to support the charge submitted to the jury and that the court properly denied defendant's motions. Defendant's contention is without merit.
We have also carefully considered defendant's contention that it was error for the trial court to allow the court reporter to read a portion of one witness's testimony to the jury after the jury had retired. G.S. 15A-1233(a) clearly permits the trial court to do this. Defendant's contention is without merit.
We hold that defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.
No error.