Court Opinion

ID: 9811160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:11:41.930802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:30.471843
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
dissenting: There are two classes of evidence, direct and circumstantial. I think if only the direct evidence is considered the majority opinion is correct, but the circumstantial evidence is fully sufficient to submit the case to the jury, and I think the judgment of the court below correct.
In S. v. Newton, 207 N. C., 323 (327), speaking to the subject, it is said: “Circumstantial evidence is not only recognized and accepted instrumentality in ascertainment of truth, but in many cases is quite essential to its establishment.” S. v. Coffey, ante, 561 (563).
It is well settled in this and other jurisdictions that where the owner of an automobile consents to its being operated in his presence by a driver whom he knows to be intoxicated or otherwise incompetent, he may be held criminally responsible for the culpable negligence of that driver. This doctrine is supported by an abundance of cases.
In S. v. Troth, 190 N. C., 674 (677-8), it is said: “That the defendant was intoxicated may be conceded; but his intoxication was voluntary, and voluntary drunkenness usually furnishes no ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. In Clark’s Criminal Law it is said: ‘When a person voluntarily drinks and becomes intoxicated, and while in such condition commits an act which would be a crime if he were sober, he is nevertheless responsible, the settled rule being that voluntary drunkenness is no excuse. A person may be so drunk when he commits an act that he is incapable, at the time, of knowing what he is doing; but in case of voluntary intoxication a man is not the less responsible for the reasonable exercise of his understanding, memory, and will.’ C. 5, sec. 27. And in S. v. John, 30 N. C., 330: All the writers of the *703criminal law from tbe most ancient to tbe most recent, so far as we are aware, declare that voluntary drunkenness will not excuse a crime committed by a man, otherwise sane, whilst acting under its influence,’ ” citing numerous authorities.
A. H. Lewis, the driver of the car, was convicted with LeBoy Creech of manslaughter. Lewis did not appeal. Was there such circumstantial evidence for the jury to consider that the defendant Creech knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care ought to have known, that Lewis was under the influence of liquor ?
N. C. Code, 1935 (Miehie), sec. 2621 (44), is as follows: “It shall be unlawful and punishable, as provided in section 2621 (101) of this act, for any person, whether licensed or not, who is an habitual user of narcotic drugs, or any person who is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs to drive any vehicle upon the highway within this State.”
Under C. S., 4643, the evidence is to be taken in the light most favorable to the State, and it is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable intendment and every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. If there is any evidence on the whole record of defendant’s guilt, the conviction will be sustained. Defendant’s evidence is discarded. S. v. Lawrence, 196 N. C., 562 (564).
The defendant LeBoy Creech was the owner of a Master-6 Chevrolet automobile. He lived in Johnston County, about 9 miles from his brother’s filling station, and the same distance from “Catch-Me-Eye” (a road house). He took two drinks before supper and two more after, he then, about 7:30 o’clock, drove his car to his brother’s filling station. He drank some liquor at his brother’s place. Then Lewis took the wheel of the car and drove to “Catch-Me-Eye.” Both he and Lewis were in the dining room at “Catch-Me-Eye” many hours, Creech claiming he was drunk from beer drinking. Lewis had talked to him about taking a trip to Sampson County to see his son. They left about 2 :00 o’clock, or after, Lewis at the wheel. No one put Creech in the car, the natural conclusion is that he was sober enough to walk to the car when he left “Catch-Me-Eye.” Was Lewis under the influence of liquor and did Creech know it? The natural conclusion is that they were drinking at “Catch-Me-Eye” together, and when Creech entered the car Lewis was under the influence of liquor. Why? Because when Lewis struck O. L. Thaggard (the deceased), he must have been driving at a terrific speed. The front of the car was all mashed in. The deputy sheriff testified: “The radiator pushed back, right-hand light knocked out, bumper almost broken in two, fender bent down, and windshield shattered on the right-hand side. I asked those fellows where they struck him and they said, ’Up the street about 30 steps.’ . . . Mr. Lewis was under the influ*704ence of liquor and Mr. Creech was more so than Lewis. . . . Mr. Lewis said he was driving the car. Mr. Creech said the car belonged to him.”
The deceased’s body was carried on the bumper of the car for 7/10 of a mile before the car was brought to a halt. Both legs were broken below the knees, chest crushed, neck broken, and also back and left arm broken.
Carlyle Jackson testified: “Lewis said they went to Creech’s brother’s filling station and stayed until about 10 :30 or 11:00 o’clock, and then came on to ‘Catch-Me-Eye’ and stayed there until they left for Clinton. Mr. Lewis said he thought he struck something and that he told Creech that he had struck a dog, hog, or something on the road. They came on and the radiator began to leak. They stopped the car and saw a man’s hand sticking up.”
Dr. J. S. Brewer testified: “I saw both the defendants that morning and Mr. Lewis made a statement that he was driving the car and when they got out of the car they thought they had hit something 25 or 30 feet back up the street. I had a conversation with Mr. Creech and he said practically the same thing Mr. Lewis did.”
There is other circumstantial evidence. The jury of 12 was composed of men “of good moral character and of sufficient intelligence.” They convicted both Lewis and Creech of manslaughter. Creech left his home and his wife and four children, on Saturday evening, in an automobile, and took with him his tenant, Lewis. He started drinking before he left, drank at his brother’s filling station, turned the wheel over to his tenant, Lewis, and went to “Catch-Me-Eye” and was drunk, as he says, on beer. But he got into the automobile early Sunday morning. The natural inference is that Lewis was under the influence of liquor, and Creech knew it, for his speed was so terrific shortly afterwards that when he struck Thaggard it crushed him worse than a cannon ball would, and carried him 7/10 of a mile (3,696 feet), and when Thaggard was dropped from the bumper of the car, they thought they had run over something and did not know whether it was a “dog, hog, or something.” Day was just breaking that Sabbath morning when these drunken men, Lewis at the wheel and Creech, the owner of the car, crushed out the life of an innocent man. Judge Daniels tried the case with his usual great care, applying the law applicable to the facts. Twelve men convicted them. The tenant goes to the penitentiary and Creech, the landlord, goes unwhipped of justice. I respectfully disagree with the nonsuit.