State v. Holt
| Decision Date | 10 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | 349. |
| Citation | 135 S.E. 324,192 N.C. 490 |
| Parties | STATE v. HOLT et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Redwine, Judge.
Bob Holt and others were convicted of highway robbery, and they appeal. New trial ordered.
The defendants, Bob Holt, Hassell Holt, Byron Gibson, and Charles Holt, were tried upon a bill of indictment, charging said defendants with highway robbery in taking from the person of Grady Raines the sum of $30, and assaulting him with a pistol.
There was testimony on behalf of the state tending to show that on or about the 26th of February, 1926, Grady Raines was traveling from High Point to Winston-Salem. In the car with him were two women, Cora Bacon and Sallie Crump; that, as the state's witness, Raines, approached a little filling station about five miles from High Point, opposite the residence of defendant Byron Gibson there was an automobile backing out from Gibson's house into the road; that, when the car backed out into the road, the defendants got out of the car, and one of them called to Raines to come back. Raines went back to where the defendants were standing in the road, and testified that defendant Bob Holt stated that he was on a scout, and did not have any money; that thereupon the defendant Hassell Holt struck him with something like a baseball bat, and Bob Holt said, "Give me your money." At that time Bob Holt had a pistol, and the other defendants Byron Gibson and Charlie Holt were standing there in his presence; that thereupon Bob Holt struck him on the head with the pistol, and ordered him to hold up his hands, and Hassell Holt struck at him with a stick. Witness further testified that Bob Holt then took a $20 bill and a $10 bill and some change out of his pocket. At this time the state's witness spoke to the defendant Gibson, whom he knew, and said, "Are you going to let these boys kill me here?" Thereupon Gibson put his hands on Raines' shoulders and pushed him through the crowd, and told them not to hit this man any more.
The state's witness, Raines, reported the matter to the police officers immediately, and soon thereafter Bob Holt was arrested. At the time of his arrest the defendant Bob Holt was asleep in a barn about 100 yards from the house of the defendant, Gibson. He had a pistol, and upon being searched, the officers found a $20 bill upon his person.
The defendant Hassell Holt was also arrested, and a $10 bill was found under his pillow, and three $1 bills and some change in the pockets of his overalls.
The defendants Charles Holt and Hassell Holt testified at the trial. The defendants Bob Holt and Byron Gibson did not testify.
The testimony of the defendant was to the effect that the state's witness, Raines, owed Bob Holt some money, and that Bob Holt made demand upon him for the money, and that thereupon he paid Bob Holt $30, said sum being in the form of a $20 bill and a $10 bill; that, after Raines had paid the defendant Holt, he started back toward his car at the filling station, and cursed Bob Holt, and that thereupon Bob Holt hit Raines with his pistol.
Upon the evidence the defendant contended that there was no robbery at all, but that Raines had paid the money voluntarily to Bob Holt, and that, after the money had been paid, and Raines was leaving the scene, he cursed Bob Holt and that Bob Holt pursued him and hit him over the head with a pistol, and that, under this evidence, the only crime that was committed was assault with a deadly weapon. The defendants Bob Holt and Hassell Holt and Byron Gibson were convicted. Bob Holt was sentenced to five years in the state's prison; Hassell Holt to three years; and Byron Gibson to two years.
From the judgment pronounced, the defendants appealed.
M. L Mott, Jr., of Winston-Salem, for appellants.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
At the conclusion of his honor's charge, counsel for defendants requested the court to charge the jury that, if it should be found that the money was paid voluntarily by the state's witness to the defendant Bob Holt, and that, after the payment, there was an altercation, and the defendant Bob Holt struck the witness with a pistol, this would constitute only an assault with a deadly weapon. The trial judge stated: Counsel for defendants thereupon addressed this question to the judge: "Did your honor charge relative to the fact that they could be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in this matter?" The judge replied, "No, sir."
The only question submitted to the jury by the trial judge in his charge was whether or not the defendants Bob Holt and Hassell Holt, or either of them, were guilty of robbery, and whether or not Byron Gibson and Charles Holt were present, aiding and abetting in the perpetration of the crime. The charge of the court concluded with these words:
"Now, as I stated, gentlemen, you may convict one or all of these defendants as you may find the facts to be, under the charge of the court, or you may acquit the one or all of them, as you may find the facts to be under the charge of the court."
The request of defendants' counsel that the court charge the jury that they could find the defendants guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon was not in writing, and hence did not comply with C. S. § 565, and the trial judge was at liberty to disregard it. But was it the duty of the trial judge under the evidence, to present that phase of the case, irrespective of a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Newsome
...... indictment, for in such event it cannot be known whether the. jury would have convicted of a less degree of the same crime. if the different views, arising on the evidence, had been. correctly presented to them by the trial court. State v. Holt, 192 N.C. 490, 135 S.E. 324; State v. Kline, 190 N.C. 177, 129 S.E. 417; State v. Lutterloh, 188 N.C. 412, 124 S.E. 752; State v. Allen, 186 N.C. 302, 119 S.E. 504; State v. Williams, 185 N.C. 685, 116 S.E. 736; State v. Merrick, 171 N.C. 788, 88 S.E. 501; State v. Kennedy, 169 ......
-
State v. Brown, 61
...evidence relating to the essential elements of the greater crime. State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 84 S.E.2d 545 (1954); State v. Holt, 192 N.C. 490, 135 S.E. 324 (1926). When there is conflicting evidence of the essential elements of the greater crime and evidence of a lesser included offense......
-
State v. Jackson
...is guilty of a crime of lesser degree than that charged in the indictment. See State v. Hardee, 192 N.C. 533, 135 S.E. 345; State v. Holt, 192 N.C. 490, 135 S.E. 324; v. Allen, 186 N.C. 302, 119 S.E. 504. The contention of the defendant that by the use of the words "tends to show," in refer......
-
State v. Sawyer
...... thereto adhere to the principle that upon an indictment for. highway robbery at common law it is not necessary to prove. both violence and putting in fear,--proof of either is. sufficient. State v. Burke, 73 N.C. 83, State v. Brown, 113 N.C. 645, 18 S.E. 51, State v. Holt,. 192 N.C. 490, 135 S.E. 324. . . . Generally the element of force in the offense of robbery may. be actual or constructive. Although actual force implies. personal violence, the degree of force used is immaterial, so. long as it is sufficient to compel the victim to part ......