Case Name: STATE v. BENJAMIN EDGAR RENFROW
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1957-03-20
Citations: 245 N.C. 665
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. BENJAMIN EDGAR RENFROW.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
STATE v. BENJAMIN EDGAR RENFROW.
(Filed 20 March, 1957.)
Automobiles § 59—
Evidence that defendant drove his ear at a speed of 70 to 75 miles per hour, in a 35 mile per hour speed zone, skidded 285 feet, ran over a four foot shoulder and then the ditch, striking and killing a boy standing at the edge of the ditch, and then 65 feet before it stopped, with further evidence that defendant had been drinking, is held sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for manslaughter.
Appeal by defendant from Paid, J., August, 1956 Term, DupliN Superior Court.
Criminal prosecution upon an indictment charging manslaughter. The evidence for the State disclosed that on the morning of 30 October, 1955, around eleven o’clock, the defendant, driving his Oldsmobile 88 on North Carolina Highway 28, ran over and killed Philamon Bouyer, age 10 years. At the time the car struck him, the boy was standing “at the edge of the ditch eating an ice cream cone.” . . . “The shoulder is about four feet wide . . . the speed was approximately 70-75 miles per hour.” The skid marks measured 285 feet to the point where the car ran over the ditch and 65 feet from that point to where it stopped. The accident occurred in the corporate limits of the Town of Warsaw in a 35-mile speed zone. There was evidence the defendant had been drinking.
The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that he was either "speeding or drinking. He testified the boy ran out in front of his car and the accident was unavoidable on his part. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment of imprisonment, the defendant appealed.
George B. Patton, Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Attorney General, for the State.
A. M. Britt for defendant, appellant.

Opinion:
Per Cueiam.
The evidence was abundantly sufficient to go to the jury and to sustain the verdict and judgment. The exceptions to the admissibility of evidence are without merit. The charge was free from error. No reason appears why the judgment should be disturbed.
No error.