State v. Huntley
Citation | 91 N.C. 617 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
Parties | STATE v. JOSEPH HUNTLEY. |
INDICTMENT for assault and battery, tried at Spring Term, 1884, of HAYWOOD Superior Court, before Graves, J.
The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery upon his wife “with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit, a stick,” and “did beat, wound and seriously injure,” &c., and upon the trial the jury found a special verdict as follows:
The court being of opinion that the facts found in the special verdict did not in law amount to serious injury, and being further of the opinion that the justice of the peace had final jurisdiction to try and determine the matter, directed a verdict of not guilty to be entered, and adjudged that the defendant go without day, from which judgment the solicitor for the state appealed.
Attorney-General, for the State .
No counsel for the defendant.
The constitution (art. 1, § 13), provides that
And art. iv, § 27, among other things provides, that, “The several justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction under such regulations as the general assembly shall prescribe * * * of all criminal matters arising within their counties where the punishment cannot exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for thirty days.”
And the statute (THE CODE, § 892,) provides that “justices of the peace shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all assaults, assaults and batteries, and affrays, where no deadly weapon is used and no serious damage is done, and of all criminal matters arising within their counties, where the punishment prescribed by law shall not exceed a fine of fifty dollars, or imprisonment for thirty days.” The other provisions of the section are not material in this connection.
The clauses of the constitution and the statute above set forth harmonize, and are intended to effectuate the purpose of giving to justices of the peace jurisdiction of “petty misdemeanors,” and thus promote good order, expedite and cheapen the administration of criminal justice in such respects. Petty misdemeanors imply small, little, trifling, inconsiderable offences, the punishment whereof cannot exceed fifty dollars fine or imprisonment for thirty days. They must be of such small importance as that the punishment of the offender could not reasonably exceed that measure, because the constitution limits the jurisdiction to such offences. In the absence of any statute prescribing the measure of punishment for assaults, assaults and batteries, affrays and like small misdemeanors, and thus bringing them within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace as prescribed by the constitution, the statute cited conferring jurisdiction could be upheld upon no other ground. State v. Johnson, 64 N. C., 581. It is because the offence is so small, that the punishment could not exceed that mentioned, that the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace arises.
The statute cited, in effectuating the provisions of the constitution, confers on justices of the peace exclusive original jurisdiction when “no deadly weapon is used and no serious damage is done.” This obviously means, that if a “deadly weapon” is used, a justice of the peace shall not have jurisdiction. This circumstance gives the offence a serious aspect and makes it important. Then what is a deadly weapon? It must be an instrument used, or that may be used, for the purpose of offence or defence capable of producing death. Some weapons are per se deadly; others, owing to the manner in which they are used, become deadly. A gun, a pistol, or a dirk-knife, is of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Birckhead
...have jurisdiction of the higher crime. State v. Albertson, 113 N.C. 633, 18 S.E. 321; State v. Shelly, 98 N.C. 673, 4 S.E. 530; State v. Huntley, 91 N.C. 617. We now consider the question as to whether or not assault with intent to commit rape is a lesser degree of the offense of rape. It w......
-
State v. Lawson
...it is proper and necessary to submit the matter to the jury with proper instructions. Id. at 538, 51 S.E. at 801 (citing State v. Huntley, 91 N.C. 617, 621 (1884)). When, therefore, instruments fall within the purview of those "other weapons that may become deadly," there must be sufficient......
-
State v. Perry
...is for the jury. State v. Archbell, 139 N.C. 537, 51 S.E. 801; State v. Norwood, 115 N.C. 789, 20 S.E. 712, 44 Am.St.Rep. 498; State v. Huntley, 91 N.C. 617, 621. ' If its character as being deadly or not, depended the facts and circumstances, it became a question for the jury with proper i......
-
State v. Perry, 75.
...the jury. State v. Archbell, 139 N.C. 537, 51 S.E. 801; State v. Norwood, 115 N.C. 789, 20 S.E. 712, 44 Am.St.Rep. 498; State v. Huntley, 91 N.C. 617, 621. 'If its character as being deadly or not, depended upon the facts and circumstances, it became a question for the jury with proper inst......