Opinion
No. 7420SC173
Filed 6 March 1974
1. Homicide 15 — cause of death — absence of expert testimony The cause of death in a prosecution for homicide may be established without the introduction of expert medical testimony if the wound inflicted by defendant is of such nature that a person of ordinary intelligence would know that it caused death.
2. Homicide 15, 21 — cause of death — sufficiency of evidence In a prosecution for first degree murder where the evidence tended to show that defendant intentionally struck deceased in the face with an iron pipe, the blow was so forceful that deceased's eyes came out of their sockets, deceased fell to the ground, and by the time deceased's wife and a neighbor carried him into the house he was dead, such evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for nonsuit, even though none of the State's witnesses testified as to the cause of death, since it tended to show a causal relationship between the intentionally inflicted injury and the death.
APPEAL from Braswell, Judge, 13 August 1973 Session of MOORE County Superior Court.
Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Heidgerd, for the State.
Seawell, Pollock, Fullenwider, Van Camp and Robbins, P.A., by P. Wayne Robbins, for defendant appellant.
Judge CARSON dissenting.
Defendant was charged in a valid bill of indictment with the first-degree murder of Baxter McKenzie. At trial the solicitor announced that the State would seek a verdict of second degree murder or any lesser included offense.
The State presented evidence which tended to show that defendant entered the yard in front of McKenzie's house and began arguing with McKenzie, who was sitting on the front porch. McKenzie's wife heard defendant threaten to kill McKenzie if he came into the front yard. McKenzie, nevertheless, picked up a large rubber boot, went into the front yard and struck defendant with the boot. Defendant thereupon hit McKenzie in the face with an iron pipe he had picked up from the front porch. McKenzie's eyes came out of their sockets, he fell to the ground; and he had ceased breathing when Mrs. McKenzie and a neighbor carried him into the house. At the time of the altercation, McKenzie was recovering from the flu, he was weak, and he had heart trouble.
At the close of State's evidence, defendant's motion for nonsuit was denied.
Defendant's evidence consisted of the testimony of Dr. C Harold Steffee who performed the autopsy on the body of McKenzie. He found a severe degree of hardening of the arteries. Although there was no evidence of a recent clot, the arteries were markedly thickened, and there was calcium in them. There was no evidence of a skull fracture or bleeding inside the brain. In his opinion, the cause of death was hardening of the arteries.
In the original death certificate, Dr. Steffee did not indicate a cause of death. On the first report he prepared for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Steffee indicated that the probable cause of death was either blunt trauma to the head or cerebral hemorrhage. In his second report, Dr. Steffee listed the probable cause of death as coronary artery disease, but in his final autopsy report he used the words "It is possible that the increased cardiac demand occasioned by an altercation might have precipitated death."
At the close of all the evidence, defendant renewed his motion for nonsuit, and it was again denied. From the entry and signing of judgment, defendant appealed.
Defendant contends that the denial of his motion for nonsuit was error inasmuch as the State failed to produce evidence showing beyond a suspicion or conjecture that decedent's death was proximately caused by acts of the defendant. With this contention we cannot agree.
The test for the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand motion for nonsuit is whether the evidence, when taken in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences and resolving all doubts in favor of the State, tends to establish that all elements of the offense have been committed. State v. McNeill, 280 N.C. 159, 185 S.E.2d 156 (1971).
The defendant's assignment of error is based on his position that the causal connection between the assault and the death has not been established. Specifically, he contends that the testimony of the medical expert that "It is possible that the increased cardiac demand occasioned by altercation might have precipitated death" does not sufficiently establish the causal relationship to warrant submission of the case to the jury.
Without deciding whether the medical testimony, standing alone, would be sufficient to establish causation, we hold that there was sufficient evidence of causal connection for the case to be submitted to the jury.
A person is legally accountable if the direct cause of a person's death is the natural result of his criminal act. State v. Knight, 247 N.C. 754, 102 S.E.2d 259 (1958); State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844 (1952). The act of the accused need not be the immediate cause of death. Id. It is well established that the State can establish causation without the introduction of expert medical testimony if the wound inflicted by defendant is of such nature that a person of ordinary intelligence would know that it caused death. State v. Wilson, 280 N.C. 674, 187 S.E.2d 22 (1972); State v. Howard, 274 N.C. 186, 162 S.E.2d 495 (1968); State v. Cole, 270 N.C. 382, 154 S.E.2d 506 (1967). The cases cited above held specifically that in cases where deceased's wound is of an obviously mortal nature, a non-expert witness is competent to offer evidence as to the cause of death. Such is not the case before us.
None of the State's witnesses testified as to the cause of death. However, the evidence tended to show that defendant intentionally struck deceased in the face with an iron pipe, and that the blow was with such force that it caused deceased's eyes to come out of their sockets. Deceased fell to the ground; and by the time his wife and a neighbor had carried him into the house, he was dead. This evidence standing alone is sufficient to withstand the motion for nonsuit, for it tends to show a causal relationship between the intentionally inflicted injury and the death. State v. Thompson, 3 N.C. App. 193, 164 S.E.2d 402 (1968). While there was no opinion offered as to the cause of death, the rule of Wilson, Howard, and Cole, supra, is nevertheless applicable. Non-expert testimony — even without an opinion as to the cause of death — can establish a causal connection between an assault and death sufficient to take the State's case to the jury.
No error.
Chief Judge BROCK concurs.
Judge CARSON dissents.