State v. Riddle

• Decision Date: 26 November 1947
• Docket Number: 77
• Citation: 45 S.E.2d 366,228 N.C. 251
• Parties: STATE v. RIDDLE et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

45 S.E.2d 366

228 N.C. 251

STATE v. RIDDLE et al.

No. 77

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 26, 1947

Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Calvin R. Edney and John H. McElroy, both of Marshall, for defendants, appellants.

SEAWELL Justice.

The defendants, and others not in the appeal, were each separately indicted for the murder of Andrew Hoyle. Since the evidence related to the same transaction the indictments were consolidated and heard together. The two appealing defendants were convicted--Grant Riddle of murder in the second degree and Emory Riddle of manslaughter.

There are over 40 assignments of error in the voluminous record and, since a new trial must be granted, we follow the rule to omit discussion of those matters not likely to recur on another hearing.

The occurrence resulting in the death of Hoyle took place near his house in the mountains of Madison County. There was an armed fight in which Hoyle and a son, on the one part, and numerous persons on the other, including the defendants, took part. As the result of the fight Andrew Hoyle fell fatally wounded, and died shortly thereafter, and numbers of the other group were wounded by a shotgun carried by the younger Hoyle.

The evidence is contradictory as to who was the aggressor and as to which of the opposite group fired the fatal shot. There is evidence, however, tending to show that defendants acted in concert, and it is, therefore, not material which inflicted the lethal wound. There is sufficient evidence notwithstanding its conflict, to sustain a conviction and the demurrer each defendant made to the evidence was properly overruled.

However, the defendants presented evidence tending to show that they acted in self-defense--each of them--entitling them to a proper instruction to the jury on that phase of the case; and the appellants complain of prejudicial omission in that regard.

The defendants introduced evidence tending to show that the deceased had the reputation of being a man of violent character, and the trial judge permitted the State to introduce rebutting evidence. Before the formal charge to the jury and in the course of the trial, the court made the following observation: 'Gentlemen of the jury, yesterday the defendants in this case offered evidence tending to show that the deceased man, Andrew Hoyle, was a man of dangerous and violent character. Where defense interposed is that of self-defense such evidence is competent. Evidence of the general reputation of the deceased is not competent or material in the case, but as the Court has stated, where the defendant interposed his self-defense, then it is proper...