State v. Bean
| Citation | 180 A. 882 |
| Case Date | October 08, 1935 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
STATE
v.
BEAN.
Supreme Court of Vermont. Orange.
Oct. 8, 1935.
Exceptions from Orange County Court; Walter H. Cleary, Judge.
Richard Bean was convicted of a breach of the peace, and he brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, THOMPSON, and SHERBURNE, JJ.
Shields & Conant, of St. Johnsbury, for respondent.
Stanley L. Chamberlin, State's Atty., of Randolph, for the State.
THOMPSON, Justice.
The respondent was convicted by a jury of a breach of the peace by assaulting and striking one Chester Pierce. At the close of the state's evidence, and again, at the close of all the evidence, the respondent moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Each motion was denied, and the respondent was allowed an exception. The first motion was waived by the respondent proceeding with the trial, so we consider only the motion made at the close of all the evidence.
The alleged offense was committed between 1 and 2 o'clock Sunday afternoon, August 27, 1933, outside a small building, hereafter referred to as the golf office, on the golf course of the Lake Morey Inn in Fairlee. At that time the respondent was in charge of the golf office. Chester Pierce, who was a caddie on the golf course, and two other caddies, lived in Orford, N. H. Chester Pierce had driven in his car with Delbert Mack from Orford to get his brother and the two other caddies to take them home to dinner. He parked his car in front of the golf course and waited there in his car. Charles Pierce and a caddie by the name of George Orton got into the car where they waited for another caddie, Frank Perry, who had to carry some golf clubs to a car that was some distance away. It appeared that Charles Pierce and the respondent, who was also a caddie had had some trouble on the golf course earlier in the day.
The evidence is conflicting, but viewing it in the light most favorable to the state, the jury would have been justified in finding the following facts: Before Frank Perry arrived at the car Charles Pierce got out of it and went to the office building
to get a drink of water, but he did not get any water because the water bottle was broken. He and the respondent then had an argument that resulted in a physical encounter on the walk that went around the office in the office building. Charles called the respondent a name and the latter struck at him but did not hit him. Charles then tackled the respondent around the legs which threw the latter across a railing and he was holding him there. Chester Pierce and the boys with him saw the respondent strike at Charles and they left the car and went over to the office building. Chester Pierce separated the respondent and Charles and told the latter to get up and go home. The respondent then struck at Chester but he did not hit him. He did hit Delbert Mack a blow in the neck.
After Chester separated the respondent and Charles, they all went out onto the grass, ten or fifteen feet from the office building. As they were leaving the building the respondent was trying to get hold of Charles and Chester was trying to separate them. As they left the building and got on the grass the respondent struck Chester a hard blow under the jaw that knocked him down and rendered him unconscious for a few minutes. The blow was hard enough to cause a longitudinal cut about an inch to an inch and a half long and a transverse cut about an inch long in his tongue. The inside of his tongue was turned almost inside out. He was taken to a hospital later in the day where four or five stiches were taken in his tongue. While Chester was unconscious, Charles and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raynes v. Rogers, 06-342.
...criminal and tort actions. See, e.g., State v. Patch, 145 Vt. 344, 349-51, 488 A.2d 755, 759-60 (1985); State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 518-19, 180 A. 882, 884 (1935); State v. Cleveland, 82 Vt. 158, 160, 72 A. 321, 321 (1909); Johnson v. Perry, 56 Vt. 703, 706-07 (1884); Hodgeden v. Hubbard, 1......
-
Raynes v. Rogers, 2008 VT 52 (Vt. 4/18/2008), 2006-342.
...criminal and tort actions. See, e.g., State v. Patch, 145 Vt. 344, 349-51, 488 A.2d 755, 759-60 (1985); State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 518-19, 180 A. 882, 884 (1935); State v. Cleaveland, 82 Vt. 158, 160, 72 A. 321, 321 (1909); Johnson v. Perry, 56 Vt. 703, 706-07 (1884); Hodgeden v. Hubbard, ......
-
State v. Bogie, 295
...earlier objection. It correctly explained the law consistent with the instructions affirmed in State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 518, 180 A. 882. The court's charge, that provocation by mere words will not justify a physical attack, was correct. Willey v. Carpenter, 64 Vt. 212, 215, 23 A. 630, 15......
-
State v. Bressette, 98-71
...the respondent waives any issue raised by the motion. State v. Goyet, 120 Vt. 12, 44, 132 A.2d 623 (1957); State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 515, 180 A. 882 We are confined to the record which it is the duty of the appellant to provide, and no question may be brought to a reviewing court unless t......
-
Raynes v. Rogers, 06-342.
...criminal and tort actions. See, e.g., State v. Patch, 145 Vt. 344, 349-51, 488 A.2d 755, 759-60 (1985); State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 518-19, 180 A. 882, 884 (1935); State v. Cleveland, 82 Vt. 158, 160, 72 A. 321, 321 (1909); Johnson v. Perry, 56 Vt. 703, 706-07 (1884); Hodgeden v. Hubbard, 1......
-
Raynes v. Rogers, 2008 VT 52 (Vt. 4/18/2008), 2006-342.
...criminal and tort actions. See, e.g., State v. Patch, 145 Vt. 344, 349-51, 488 A.2d 755, 759-60 (1985); State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 518-19, 180 A. 882, 884 (1935); State v. Cleaveland, 82 Vt. 158, 160, 72 A. 321, 321 (1909); Johnson v. Perry, 56 Vt. 703, 706-07 (1884); Hodgeden v. Hubbard, ......
-
State v. Bogie, 295
...earlier objection. It correctly explained the law consistent with the instructions affirmed in State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 518, 180 A. 882. The court's charge, that provocation by mere words will not justify a physical attack, was correct. Willey v. Carpenter, 64 Vt. 212, 215, 23 A. 630, 15......
-
State v. Bressette, 98-71
...the respondent waives any issue raised by the motion. State v. Goyet, 120 Vt. 12, 44, 132 A.2d 623 (1957); State v. Bean, 107 Vt. 513, 515, 180 A. 882 We are confined to the record which it is the duty of the appellant to provide, and no question may be brought to a reviewing court unless t......