State v. Leary, 6
| Decision Date | 17 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 6,6 |
| Citation | 140 S.E.2d 756,264 N.C. 51 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Arthur LEARY, Jimmy Williams, Warren Griffin, Ray Vines, Donnie Reid, Walter Jones, Jr., William Whitaford, Edward Speller, Gilbert Best, George Gibson, Oscar Burnett and Jerome Spruill. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen.Ralph Moody, for the State.
Earl Whitted, Jr., Goldsboro, and Samuel S. Mitchell, Raleigh, for appellants.
During the trial, appellants noted 49 exceptions to the court's rulings and charge. They have now abandoned all except the single question stated in their brief, viz.: 'Did the court below err by failing to grant appellants' motion for judgment as of nonsuit?'
Whether defendants moved for nonsuit or for a directed verdict, as stated in the judgment, is not material. Appellants make no contention that the form in which their motion was made deprived them of the opportunity to testify. They did not testify nor did they offer other evidence. Their position is, accepting the State's evidence as true, it is insufficient to require submission to the jury because: (1) It does not establish an unlawful assembly; (2) nor does it show that any appellant committed or aided in the commission of an unlawful act.
The State does not controvert the right of its citizens to assemble peacefully for a lawful purpose. On the other hand, lawful original purpose for an assembly cannot excuse subsequent mob action, resulting in wanton destruction of property, and deliberate injury to officers seeking merely to preserve peace. The law, applicable to such situations, was clearly stated by Denny, J. (now C. J.) in State v. Cole, 249 N.C.733, 107 S.E.2d 732. He said: 'The overwhelming weight of authority seems to be to the effect, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, that persons may assemble together for a lawful purpose, but if at any time during the meeting they act with a common intent, formed before or during the meeting, to attain a purpose which will interfere with the rights of others by committing disorderly acts in such manner as to cause sane, firm and courageous persons in the neighborhood to apprehend a breach of the peace, such meeting constitutes an unlawful assembly.'
Appellants, in their brief filed here, give this factual background to measure the conduct and purpose of those who assembled in Williamston on the night of August 29, 1963. This statement is supported by the testimony, on cross examination, of Sheriff Rawls, a State's witness:
About 9 p. m. on August 29, two police officers, one white, the other Negro, sought to persuade a crowd, composed of about 200 Negroes, not to march to the business district of the town. There was a line approximately 50 yards long. It blocked the street and the sidewalks on each side. It overflowed into the yards of private property owners.
The officers requested the crowd to break up and go home. It disregarded the requests. It pushed forward to the business district. The two officers were forced to yield ground. Many in the crowd were carrying placards or billboards. The officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Osmundson
...of the riot, as we have construed those italicized words, he is properly liable to criminal sanction. As stated in State v. Leary, 264 N.C. 51, 52, 140 S.E.2d 756, 757 (1965), "(L)awful original purpose for an assembly cannot excuse subsequent mob action, resulting in wanton destruction of ......
-
State v. Arnold
...of speech and right to peacefully assemble. We note people have the right to peacefully assemble for lawful purposes. State v. Leary, 264 N.C. 51, 140 S.E.2d 756 (1965). However, in the case at bar, people, including defendant, were assembled for an unlawful purpose. See also People v. Berg......