State v. HinesÂ

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA17-968
Filed: 1 May 2018
Johnston County, Nos. 16CRS052218–19
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DAVID HINES, JR.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 16 March 2017 by Judge W.
Douglas Parsons in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
3 April 2018.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General William H.
Harkins, Jr., for the State.
William D. Spence for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Where defendant’s admitted that he was the driver of the vehicle, and the State
presented sufficient independent corroborating evidence that defendant was the
driver of the vehicle, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied and the State did not err in
denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him. We find no error in
the judgments of the trial court.
Around 10:00 p.m. on 9 April 2016, volunteer firefighter Brent Driver (“Brent”)
was off duty when he saw an unknown female standing in the middle of the road
waving her arms back and forth on Princeton Kenly Road in Johnston County. Brent
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
stopped, and the woman told him that a wreck had occurred, and that she had already
called 911. Brent’s passenger, another firefighter, went and checked the car—a white
Rodeo SUV which was nose-down in a ditch on the side of the road—“to see if there
was [sic] any fluids leaking from the vehicle, gas or anything like that.” Brent then
observed defendant David Hines, Jr., leaning against the back of the white Rodeo.
Brent testified that defendant “smelled [of a] real high odor of alcohol and couldn’t
maintain his balance or anything.” Brent asked defendant to come and sit in the back
of Brent’s truck “so [defendant] didn’t fall and hurt himself.”
Brent noted that defendant was wearing only one white shoe. An identical
white shoe was found in the driver’s side floorboard of the white Rodeo. Brent also
observed a cut on defendant’s forehead.
Trooper Chris Bell with the North Carolina State Highway Patrol responded
to the scene of the accident. He first spoke with Brent, who told him that the driver
of the white Rodeo—defendant—was sitting in the tailgate of his truck. As Trooper
Bell approached defendant, he noticed that defendant had “a distinct sway,”
“bloodshot” and “glassy eyes,” and he also “[d]etected a very strong odor of alcohol.”
Trooper Bell asked defendant for his driver’s license, and defendant responded
that he did not have one. Instead, he provided Trooper Bell with an ID card
containing defendant’s picture, name, and date of birth. When Trooper Bell asked
about the accident, defendant told him he was not familiar with the area, he was the
-2-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
only person present in the vehicle at the time of the accident, and that he “hit the
ditch” when he ran a stop sign driving approximately sixty miles per hour.
Trooper Bell then asked defendant to fill out a standard witness statement
form, which he handed to defendant as he sat on the tailgate of Brent’s truck. Trooper
Bell stepped away to call a tow truck, and when he returned to retrieve the witness
statement from defendant about ten to fifteen minutes later, he discovered defendant
“laying in the bed of the truck, passed out.”
Trooper Bell retrieved the witness statement form, noting that defendant had
only signed and dated the form without providing a statement. Based on the
information given him by defendant, Trooper Bell proceeded to fill out the witness
statement in his own handwriting.
At some point, Trooper Bell asked defendant to submit to a portable breath
test, and defendant refused. Defendant was then arrested for driving while impaired
(“DWI”), handcuffed, placed in the front passenger seat of Trooper Bell’s patrol car,
and driven to the Johnston County courthouse’s Intoximeter room. Once there,
defendant was read his rights but refused to provide “any kind of sample” for analysis
and also refused standardized field sobriety testing later at the jail. Trooper Bell
obtained a warrant for defendant’s blood sample, and defendant was transported to
Johnston Medical Center in Smithfield. Defendant’s blood was drawn, and the sample
was submitted to the State crime lab for analysis.
-3-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
On 9 April 2016, defendant was charged with DWI, driving while license
revoked (“DWLR”), and careless and reckless driving. The case was called for trial
before the Honorable W. Douglas Parsons, Judge presiding, during the 13 March 2017
Criminal Session of Johnston County Superior Court. The trial court denied
defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress, and defendant was tried before a jury.
Defendant stipulated that he had been previously convicted of DWI three
separate times, with his counsel acknowledging that “[h]e’s eligible for habitual
DWI.” Defendant also stipulated that his license was revoked at the time of the
accident on 9 April 2016.
Erin Cosme, a forensic toxicologist with the North Carolina State Crime
Laboratory, was qualified as an expert witness without objection. Cosme testified
about the chain of custody regarding defendant’s blood sample taken the day of the
accident and testified that defendant’s sample revealed a blood ethanol concentration
of 0.33 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters.
At the close of the State’s evidence, defendant moved to dismiss all charges for
insufficiency of the evidence pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1227 and the corpus
delicti rule. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, noting that in addition to
defendant’s own admission to Trooper Bell that he was driving the white Rodeo on
the day of the accident, there was also corroboration of the corpus delicti, the crime.
Defendant did not present any evidence.
-4-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
The jury found defendant guilty of DWI, DWLR, and careless and reckless
driving. Defendant admitted to aggravating factors, and he was sentenced to twenty-
four months minimum, thirty-eight months maximum on the felony DWI. Defendant
was also sentenced to 120 days for the misdemeanors of DWLR and careless and
reckless driving. Defendant appeals.
_________________________________________________________
On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss the charges of (I) habitual impaired driving; (II) driving while license
revoked; and (III) reckless driving to endanger.
I & II
Defendant first argues the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss
the charges of (I) habitual impaired driving and (II) driving while license revoked.
Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions to
dismiss under the corpus delicti rule, where a trooper testified that defendant
admitted at the scene that he was the driver of the wrecked car but where there was
otherwise no corroborative evidence, independent of defendant’s extra-judicial
confession. We disagree.
“This Court reviews the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss de novo.”
State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007) (citing State v.
McKinnon, 306 N.C. 288, 298, 293 S.E.2d 118, 125 (1982)). “Upon defendant’s motion
-5-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
for dismissal, the question for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1)
of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included
therein, and (2) of defendant’s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion
is properly denied.” State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (2000)
(quoting State v. Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)).
“When the State relies upon a defendant’s extrajudicial confession, we apply
the corpus delicti rule ‘to guard against the possibility that a defendant will be
convicted of a crime that has not been committed.” State v. Cox, 367 N.C. 147, 151,
749 S.E.2d 271, 275 (2013) (quoting State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 235, 337 S.E.2d
487, 494 (1985)). “This inquiry is preliminary to consideration of whether the State
presented sufficient evidence to survive the motion to dismiss.” Id.
The corpus delicti rule is historically grounded on
three policy justifications: (1) to “protect[ ] against those
shocking situations in which alleged murder victims turn
up alive after their accused killer has been convicted and
perhaps executed”; (2) to “ensure[ ] that confessions that
are erroneously reported or construed, involuntarily made,
mistaken as to law or fact, or falsely volunteered by an
insane or mentally disturbed individual cannot be used to
falsely convict a defendant”; and (3) “to promote good law
enforcement practices [by] requir[ing] thorough
investigations of alleged crimes to ensure that justice is
achieved and the innocent are vindicated.”
Id. (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Smith, 362 N.C. 583, 591–92, 669 S.E.2d
299, 305 (2008)). “Traditionally, our corpus delicti rule has required the State to
present corroborative evidence, independent of the defendant’s confession, tending to
-6-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
show that ‘(a) the injury or harm constituting the crime occurred [and] (b) this injury
was done in a criminal manner.’ ” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Smith, 362 N.C. at
589, 669 S.E.2d at 304).
[T]he [corpus delicti] rule requires the State to present
evidence tending to show that the crime in question
occurred. The rule does not require the State to logically
exclude every possibility that the defendant did not commit
the crime. Thus, if the State presents evidence tending to
establish that the injury or harm constituting the crime
occurred and was caused by criminal activity, then the
corpus delicti rule is satisfied and the State may use the
defend-ant’s [sic] confession to prove his identity as the
perpetrator.
Id. at 152, 749 S.E.2d at 275 (citing State v. Trexler, 316 N.C. 528, 533, 342 S.E.2d
878, 881 (1986)). “Significantly, however, ‘a confession identifying who committed the
crime is not subject to the corpus delicti rule.’ ” State v. Sawyers, ___ N.C. App. ___,
___, 808 S.E.2d 148, 152 (2017) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Ballard, 244 N.C.
App. 476, 480, 781 S.E.2d 75, 78 (2015)).
In Trexler, a DWI case, the defendant admitted that he wrecked his car after
drinking, left the scene, and returned a short time later. 316 N.C. at 533, 342 S.E.2d
at 881. The trial court concluded that the following independent evidence established
the corpus delicti, the crime: an overturned car was lying in the middle of the road;
when the defendant returned to the scene, he appeared impaired from alcohol; the
defendant measured a .14 on the breathalyzer; and the wreck was otherwise
unexplained. Id. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court did
-7-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
not err when it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the defendant’s
argument that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti of impaired driving. Id. at
535, 342 S.E.2d at 882.
In the instant case, in addition to defendant’s statement to Trooper Bell that
he was the driver of the wrecked vehicle and defendant’s appearance of intoxication,
the State presented sufficient independent corroborating evidence that defendant
had been driving the wrecked vehicle while impaired: (1) the wrecked vehicle found
nose down in a ditch; (2) one shoe was found in the driver’s side footwell of the vehicle,
and defendant was wearing the matching shoe; (3) no one else was in the area at the
time of the accident other than defendant, who appeared to be appreciably impaired;
(4) defendant had an injury—a cut on his forehead—consistent with having been in
a wreck; and (5) the wreck of the white Rodeo could not otherwise be explained. As
to independent evidence of defendant’s impairment, the State’s expert witness in
toxicology testified that defendant’s blood sample taken the date of the accident had
a blood ethanol concentration of 0.33 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters as defined
by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-4.01.
Accordingly, pursuant to Trexler, the State offered sufficient corroborating
evidence independent of defendant’s own admission to Trooper Bell that he was the
driver of the wrecked vehicle, and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s
motion to dismiss based on the corpus delicti rule.
-8-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
As for defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the evidence,
this argument also fails.
A person commits the offense of habitual impaired driving
if he drives while impaired as defined in G.S. 20-138.1 and
has been convicted of three or more offenses involving
impaired driving as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(24a) within 10
years of the date of this offense.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-138.5(a) (2017). “To convict a defendant under N.C. Gen. Stat. §
20-28(a) of driving while his license is revoked the State must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt (1) the defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle (2) on a public
highway (3) while his operator’s license is revoked.” State v. Richardson, 96 N.C.
App. 270, 271, 385 S.E.2d 194, 195 (1989) (citing State v. Atwood, 290 N.C. 266, 271,
225 S.E.2d 543, 545 (1976)).
At trial, defendant stipulated that on 9 April 2016, his license was revoked for
an impaired driving conviction. He also stipulated to three previous convictions for
DWI within ten years of 9 April 2016: on 11 January 2013 in Wilson County; on 3
April 2008 in Nash County; and on 17 October 2008 in Wilson County. As such,
defendant has met the statutory requirements for habitual DWI pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 20-138.5(a) and DWLR pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-28(a), and the
trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the
evidence pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1227. Defendant’s arguments are
overruled.
-9-
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
III
Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
charge of reckless driving to endanger for the same reasons enunciated in Sections I
& II, or in the alternative, because the State’s evidence was insufficient to withstand
defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The essential elements of the charge of reckless driving to endanger include
the following:
(a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway or
any public vehicular area carelessly and heedlessly in
willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of
others shall be guilty of reckless driving.
(b) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway or
any public vehicular area without due caution and
circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to
endanger or be likely to endanger any person or
property shall be guilty of reckless driving.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-140(a)–(b) (2017).
For the reasons stated in Sections I & II, the corpus delicti rule was satisfied
by the State’s evidence presented in the trial court. Defendant admitted to Trooper
Bell that he was the driver of the wrecked vehicle and that he was not familiar with
the area and ran a stop sign going sixty miles per hour before crashing, and defendant
appeared intoxicated at the scene. Thus, the State presented sufficient independent
corroborating evidence that defendant was recklessly driving the vehicle while
impaired.
- 10 -
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
In Sawyers, the defendant was charged with and convicted of, inter alia, DWI,
DWLR, and reckless driving. ___ N.C. App. at ___, 808 S.E.2d at 151–52. On appeal,
the defendant argued the State presented insufficient evidence, independent of the
defendant’s own extrajudicial confession to a state trooper, to establish that he was
driving the car. This Court noted that the “[d]efendant’s argument demonstrate[d] a
common misunderstanding of the corpus delicti rule[,]” and that the State had
“presented substantial evidence to establish that the cause of the car accident was
criminal activity, i.e. reckless and impaired driving.” Id. at ___, 808 S.E.2d at 152.
This Court reasoned that “[w]hile it may have been unclear at that time whether [the]
defendant or [another individual] was the driver, the corpus delicti rule merely
‘requires the State to present evidence tending to show that the crime in question
occurred.’ ” Id. (quoting Cox, 367 N.C. at 152, 749 S.E.2d at 275). The State’s evidence
included the fact that the driver of the car had been speeding and driving in an unsafe
manner and both of the vehicle’s occupants were emanating an odor of alcohol. Id.
Accordingly, this Court determined the corpus delicti rule had been satisfied. Id.
(citation omitted).
In the instant case, the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant’s
single-vehicle accident, which resulted from impaired driving, speeding, and running
a stop sign, resulted in both property damage to the wrecked vehicle and personal
injury to defendant. As such, the State presented sufficient evidence that defendant
- 11 -
STATE V. HINES
Opinion of the Court
operated the white Rodeo on 9 April 2016 while impaired and in a reckless manner,
sufficient to satisfy the elements of that crime. See N.C.G.S. § 20-140(a)–(b).
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the
reckless and careless driving charge, and defendant’s argument is overruled.
NO ERROR.
Judges CALABRIA and HUNTER, JR. concur.
- 12 -