Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 N.C. App. 576

402 S.E.2d 848

State v. Woody

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 16, 1991

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1991-04-16

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2009

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(1) [defendant] operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a public highway, (3) while his operator's license was suspended or revoked, and (4) had knowledge of the suspension or revocation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 184 N.C. App. 140 - State v. Coltrane

Relies on 48 N.C. App. 481 - State v. Trapper · Trapper Et Al. v. North Carolina · 30 N.C. App. 224 - State v. Chester

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-04-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*578 PHILLIPS, Judge.

¶1 Defendant assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from stopping his vehicle, which he contends was unlawful; the admission into evidence of the order revoking his driver’s license; and the denial of his motion to dismiss at the close of the State’s evidence. None of the defendant’s assignments has merit and we find no error in the trial.

¶2 Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence was properly overruled for two reasons: First, no evidence pertinent to his conviction was obtained from the stop; second, the stop was not unlawful because the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that defendant was driving while impaired and while his license was revoked. State v. Trapper, 48 N.C. App. 481, 269 S.E.2d 680, appeal dismissed, 301 N.C. 405, 273 S.E.2d 450 (1980), cert. denied by Trapper v. North Carolina, 451 U.S. 997, 68 L.Ed.2d 856 (1981).

¶3 Instead of being error, receiving the civil part of the revocation order into evidence to show that defendant’s driver’s license was revoked and he knew it was authorized by the public records exception to the hearsay rule, Rule 803(8)(A), N.C. Rules of Evidence.

¶4 Defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution at the end of the State’s evidence was properly overruled. To sustain the charge against him the State had to prove that (1) he operated a motor vehicle, (2) on a public highway, (3) while his operator’s license was suspended or revoked, and (4) had knowledge of the suspension or revocation. State v. Chester, 30 N.C. App. 224, 226 S.E.2d 197 (1976). The first two elements of the offense were supported by Officer Redmond’s testimony; the last two by the revocation order.

¶5 No error.

Judges EAGLES and WYNN concur.
/102/ncapp/576 · .json · Public domain