State v. Dula

In State v. Dula 77 N.C. App. 473, 474-75, 335 S.E.2d 203, 204 (1985), the only question was whether the defendant was operating the vehicle. Id. at 474, 335 S.E.2d at 204. A witness testified observing black tire marks on the highway and a car "with its headlights on, lying on its top in a field near the highway." Id. at 474, 335 S.E.2d at 204. When the witness went to the vehicle, defendant was inside with the windows rolled up and the car doors closed. Id. The Court held: This evidence is clearly sufficient, in our opinion, to justify the inference that defendant was driving the car before it left the public highway; and its sufficiency is not affected by the fact that other evidence tended to show that defendant was not driving. The other evidence consisted of an admission extracted from the investigating patrolman that defendant told him he was not the driver, and testimony by a witness for the defendant to the effect that: He drove the car, was thrown out through a door which opened while the car was turning over, and left the scene quickly because he was afraid. The State was not required to disprove this version of the matter; nor did it have to prove to a scientific certainty that defendant was the driver of the car; it only had to present evidence from which that fact could be deduced by reasonably minded people. And it matters not that the State's evidence was entirely circumstantial, while the defendant's evidence was direct and by a professed participant and eyewitness. The weight of all evidence is for the jury, which often finds physical circumstances more reliable than the testimony of eyewitnesses, as our courts have noted many times. Dula, 77 N.C. App. at 474-75, 335 S.E.2d at 204.