State v. Allen

• Decision Date: 04 March 1914
• Parties: STATE v. ALLEN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

80 S.E. 1075

166 N.C. 265

STATE v. ALLEN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 4, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court, Vance County; Peebles, Judge.

Louis Allen was tried for assault with a deadly weapon on William Royster, and discharged, and the State appeals. Error.

While the determinative facts in a criminal prosecution are some times presented by a special verdict, all the essential facts must be found by the jury, so that defendant's guilt or innocence follows as a conclusion of law, and, if it refers any such fact or inference of fact to the judge, it is insufficient and will be set aside.

Where a special verdict, in a prosecution for assault, failed to show whether the cutting of a person who had unlawfully arrested defendant was done in an effort to escape, and whether it was necessary for that purpose, and defendant's guilt was referred to the judge on the facts found the verdict was insufficient, and will be set aside.

The jury returned a special verdict acquitting the defendant. The relevant and material facts in such verdict are as follows "That William Royster stopped the defendant on the highway along which he was driving, and found in the buggy three to five gallons of liquor. Royster then got in the defendant's vehicle and ordered him to drive on towards Henderson, which defendant did. Royster was not an officer and had no warrant." The particulars of the assault are thus stated in the special verdict: "After going a mile or so, a suit case either fell or was pushed by defendant out of the buggy. Prosecutor turned the buggy around and recovered it. A little further on defendant pushed or rattled some bottles in the foot of the buggy, and was told by prosecutor to stop it, and prosecutor, still holding defendant's pistol in his right hand, leaned over to move or prevent the loss of the bottles, when he was suddenly cut on the back of his neck by the defendant with a knife. A violent scuffle ensued, in which prosecuting witness was cut twice more, under the shoulder and in the back, and the pistol, for which each was struggling, was broken or disconnected. Prosecutor then got defendant on the ground and got on top of him and choked him until defendant gave up and submitted to be tied, which prosecutor did with defendant's own belt, and prosecutor then carried defendant five or six miles and locked him up in the county jail, without warrant or mittimus." Pursuing the proper form in such cases, the verdict continues as follows "If his honor, upon the foregoing findings and special verdict, shall be of opinion that the defendant is guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon upon William Royster, the jury so find; otherwise, we find him not guilty."

Upon the foregoing facts, the court, being of opinion the defendant is not guilty, so instructed the...