State v. Hoffman

Decision Date20 August 1930
Docket Number544.
Citation154 S.E. 314,199 N.C. 328
PartiesSTATE v. HOFFMAN et al.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, McDowell County; Cowper, Special Judge.

Alfred Hoffman and others were convicted of engaging in a riot, and they appeal.

No error.

Evidence held sufficient to take question to jury respecting riot by striking mill workers, who resisted sheriff's efforts to replace employee's furniture which strikers had left near highway.

Evidence held sufficient to take case to jury on issue whether defendants aided and abetted riot by striking mill workers.

The defendants, Hoffman, Fowler, Hogan, Russell, Lewis, and Hall were indicted upon a bill containing four counts. The first count charged engaging in a riot; the second count charged resisting the sheriff of McDowell county in the performance of his duties; the third count charged resisting the deputy sheriff of McDowell county while in the discharge of his duties; and the fourth count charged resisting the constable of Marion township, McDowell county while in the performance of his duties.

The jury convicted Hoffman, Hogan, Fowler, and Lewis. By the judgment entered, Hogan, Fowler, and Lewis were ordered to be confined in the common jail of McDowell county for a period of six months and assigned to work on the public roads. Hoffman was sentenced to jail for a period of thirty days and fined the sum of $1,000 and costs.

The verdict as shown by the record is as follows: "The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to all four of the defendants on the count in the bill charging them with rioting and not guilty as to all other counts in the bill. The jury recommends the mercy of the court."

The names of the four defendants convicted do not appear in the verdict at all. The judgment is pronounced against Hogan Fowler, Lewis, and Hoffman; hence we assume that the other two defendants were acquitted.

The evidence tended to show that there was a strike in progress among the workmen of the Clinchfield Mill and other mills in Marion, N.C. On August 30, 1929, a man named Ruppe came from Caroleen, Rutherford county, to work in the mill. He brought his furniture with him, and at the instance of officials of the mill placed his furniture in a house belonging to the Clinchfield Mill. This house is situated near highway No. 10 which is commonly referred to as the main street of North Carolina, running from the ocean to the mountains. The mill road branches off from No. 10, and the house in which Ruppe moved his furniture was about 300 yards from said highway. Ruppe left his furniture in the house, and the house was closed. He then returned to his home in Rutherford county. That afternoon about 3 o'clock it was discovered by the officials of the mill that the house had been broken into and the furniture dumped out on highway No. 10 at a point at or near the mouth of the mill road. "It was just on the edge of the concrete and against the bank." Officials of the mill called the sheriff of McDowell county to put the furniture back in the house. Sheriff Adkins took with him his deputies, Hendley, Tate, Gowan, and Halliburton, and also Robbins, the constable of Marion township. Arriving upon the scene and at the place where the furniture was lying in the road, the sheriff and his deputies found 75 or 100 people standing on highway No. 10 at the mouth of the mill road, blocking the same. As soon as the sheriff and his deputies appeared, the crowd surged about them. The defendants Fowler and Lewis were in this surging crowd and surged with them. Fowler had an open knife in his hand, and Lewis was armed with a stick 2 1/2 or 3 feet long. Eighty per cent. of the people in the crowd who were blocking the road had sticks.

The sheriff secured a wagon and a driver from the mill, loaded the furniture on it, and attempted to carry it back to the house from which it had been taken. When the furniture had been loaded, Fowler approached the sheriff and said, "What in the hell are you going to try to do now?" At that time Fowler had an open knife in his hand. The sheriff grabbed at Fowler's hand, and he jerked the knife back and put it in his pocket. Thereupon the sheriff arrested Fowler and placed him in a car in charge of Deputies Hendley and Gowan, and told them to drive through the crowd. Fowler kept pulling back "saying he hadn't done anything." In the meantime the crowd had increased to about 200, blocking the entire road, and "hollering and cursing, and saying, 'they are not going to get through this crowd." D' The road leading into the village was blocked. When the sheriff's car in which Fowler had been placed began to move through the crowd, the sheriff walked behind it and ordered the wagon loaded with furniture to follow him. Thereupon the crowd closed together, and, when the team started, they proceeded "to beat the mules and throw rocks at the driver. They hit the mules with sticks, threw rocks at the driver and cursed. *** They were hollering, 'Damn scabs are not coming in. We are not going to let them come in and everybody hold your ground.' They shouted to the sheriff that he had no damn business down there and that he had better get the hell away from there, they were not going to let that stuff go in." The sheriff kept telling them they had better stand back and let the team through, as they had no right to block the highway. At this time the defendant Hogan appeared upon the scene and began conferring with the crowd, going "from group to group." After Hogan was there talking to the crowd, they continued to keep the road blocked, hollering. At this time the crowd had increased to about 300. When the sheriff's car, carrying the defendant Fowler to jail, was passing through the crowd, they beat on the car several times. A milkman named Houk came along the road to deliver milk to his customers. He saw the sheriff and his deputies near the mouth of the road. He was stopped by two men armed with sticks. When he attempted to pass through the crowd, "they began beating on my truck." The defendant Hogan was present at that time, and the crowd around him had sticks. The crowd was yelling and hollering and cursed the milkman, or, as he testified, "Called me all kinds of stuff, scabs and everything of that kind; I couldn't say, was so much hollering and yelling, couldn't tell what they were all saying."

Seeing that he and his deputies were overpowered and that the road was throughly blocked by the surging crowd and that it would be impossible to move the furniture, the sheriff called for troops then stationed in Marion. Before the arrival of the troops, the defendant Hoffman appeared upon the scene. The sheriff testified: "I saw Mr. Hoffman's car drive up to the switch down there two or three times, I think three times, and bring a load of folks and get out of his car and come and join the crowd. I couldn't say how many people he brought in his car, 3, 4 or 5 times. It is a Buick coupe. Those people had sticks, lots of them; when they got out of his car they would go down in the crowd with their sticks. It was a regular turmoil. They were hollering, everybody was hollering and cursing, and ever once and a while a rock would ziz by you." Just as the troops came in sight, the defendant Hogan came into the crowd, and the crowd began yelling. Hogan said something to the crowd, and part of the crowd in front began to put their sticks on their shoulders and began to march up and down in front of the crowd and holler, ""Bring on the troops, to hell with the troops." Captain Lyda was commanding officer of the troops. When he arrived at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Covington
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 14, 1976
    ...v. Oxendine, 187 N.C. 658, 122 S.E. 568, and renders assistance or encouragement to him in the perpetration of the crime. State v. Hoffman, 199 N.C. 328, 154 S.E. 314; State v. Baldwin, 193 N.C. 566, 137 S.E. 590. While mere presence cannot constitute aiding and abetting in legal contemplat......
  • In re J.D.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2019
    ...mere presence during the commission of a crime, though, does not typically constitute aiding and abetting. State v. Hoffman , 199 N.C. 328, 333, 154 S.E. 314, 316 (1930). However, "when the bystander is a friend of the perpetrator and knows that his presence will be regarded by the perpetra......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1942
    ... ... present, by word or conduct, incites another to commit a ... criminal act or one who so far participates in the commission ... of the offense as to be present to the knowledge of the ... person actually committing the crime for the purpose of ... assisting, if necessary." State v. Hoffman, 199 ... N.C. 328, 333, 154 S.E. 314 ...           In 2 ... C.J., p. 1024, Aider and Abettor is defined as follows: ... "One who advises, counsels, procures, or encourages ... another to commit a crime, whether personally present or not ... at the time and place of the commission of ... ...
  • State v. Golder
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 3, 2020
    ...encourage, or assist the actual perpetration of a crime, this is sufficient to constitute aiding and abetting. State v. Hoffman , 199 N.C. 328, 154 S.E. 314, 316 (1930) (citations omitted).Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State in support of its theory o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT