State v. Griffin
| Decision Date | 12 December 1899 |
| Citation | 125 N.C. 692,34 S.E. 513 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. GRIFFIN et al. |
Affray—Evidence—Instructions.
1. When the affray charged is the fighting of two or more persons in a public place, the public place need not be specified or proved.
2. On an indictment for an affray consisting of the fighting of two or more persons, some of the defendants may be convicted and the others acquitted.
3. When an affray is charged to have been by the fighting of two or more, it is enough to instruct as to the law of mutual assaults and batteries.
Appeal from superior court, Union county; Coble, Judge.
William Griffin and others appeal from a conviction. Affirmed.
Armfield & Williams, for appellants.
Brown Shepherd and the Attorney General, for the State.
The indictment is lost, but an agreement is sent up in the record that it was in the usual form for an "affray." Four defendants were on trial. The evidence was that the mêdée occurred in the road, but it was not stated whether or not it was a public road. The defendants asked the court to charge the jury that they must acquit the defendants unless they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the fighting was in a public place, and excepted to the refusal so to charge. An affray may be committed by "going armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people." State v. Huntly, 25 N. C. 418. But when the affray charged is the fighting of two or more persons on a public highway or street, or simply in a public place, the indictment is, in effect, merely for the several assaults and batteries, one bill being used simply to avoid several trials for the same offense. This is recognized in State v. Baker, 83 N. C. 649, in which it is said the public place need not be specified, and, of course, therefore it need not be proved. In the same case it is said that, on an indictment for an affray, one may be convicted, and the other acquitted; for, the indictment being for mutual assaults, the defendant is "convicted of the offense with which he is legally charged, "—citing State v. Brown, 82 N. C. 585, which holds that an indictment on a conviction for an affray may be legally described as for an assault and battery, citing State v. Allen, 11 N. C. 356, and State v. Wilson, 61 N. C. 237.
This disposes, also, of the exception that the court charged the law as to mutual assaults and batteries, without charging the specific law as to affrays. This was for the very sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dawson, 831
...authority for this last statement, Ashe, J., the author of the opinion, cited and quoted from State v. Huntley, supra. In State v. Griffin, 125 N.C. 692, 34 S.E. 513, Clark, J. (later C.J.), cited State v. Huntley as authority for his statement that 'An affray may be committed by 'going arm......
-
State v. Baldwin
...ruling being to the effect that the 'public place,' formerly considered an essential, need be no longer specified or proved. State v. Griffin, 125 N.C. 692. when there is relevant testimony, it has come to be considered the correct and sufficient definition of an unlawful affray or breach o......
-
State v. Crisp
... ... 332. C. Where one had wrongfully committed an ... affray, an unlawful and mutual fighting together in a public ... place, the more recent ruling being to the effect that the ... "public place," formerly considered an essential, ... need be no longer specified or proved. State v ... Griffin, 125 N.C. 692, 34 S.E. 513. And, when there is ... relevant testimony, it has come to be considered the correct ... and sufficient definition of an unlawful affray or breach of ... the peace when one has "entered into a fight ... willingly," in the sense of voluntarily and without ... lawful ... ...
-
State v. Lancaster
...74 N.C. 184; State v. Perry, 50 N.C. 9, 69 Am. Dec. 768. Here the charge is "did mutually assault and beat each other." In State v. Griffin, 125 N.C. 692, 34 S.E. 513, it held that the place need not be charged nor proven. The form of the indictment is sufficient. Rev. §§ 3254, 3255. His ho......