State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 31 January 1880 |
| Citation | 82 N.C. 554 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. L. D. TAYLOR and another. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for an Affray tried at Fall Term, 1879, of WAKE Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The defendant and one Adolphus Williams were indicted for an affray; both were found guilty, and the defendant, Taylor, moved for a new trial on the ground of misdirection in the charge of the court to the jury. The motion was overruled, and judgment pronounced against both defendants, from which the defendant, Taylor, appealed. The grounds of the exception are sufficiently set out in the opinion.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. T. M. Argo, for defendant .
The alleged affray occurred in the house of the defendant, and only three witnesses were examined, two for the state and one for defendant.
The court charged the jury that if they believed the testimony of any of the witnesses on behalf of the state or defendant, both defendants were guilty; that according to the testimony of any witness examined both defendants were guilty. And after the case was submitted to the jury with this charge, they came into court and asked His Honor to instruct them as to the amount of force that might be lawfully used by the defendant Taylor, in order to expel the other defendant from his house. The court told the jury that question did not arise from the testimony, and that it was not made necessary or proper by the testimony of any witness who had been examined for the court to instruct them upon this point. To this ruling of His Honor the defendant excepted.
If then there was any one witness examined who testified to a state of facts, taken by itself, from which it might reasonably be inferred that the purpose of Taylor in advancing on Williams, the other defendant, with the whip-staff, was to remove him from his house, that question should have been left to the jury, and then the further question would necessarily arise as to the amount of force the defendant might use to accomplish his purpose. How then stands the case?
One witness, Bryan Smith, testified that the first he saw was Williams at the door of Taylor's house “cutting or reaching into the door and Taylor came out striking at Williams with a whip-staff, while Williams was cutting at Taylor with a razor; that Williams walked backwards cutting with his razor some ten or fifteen feet from Taylor's door, and Taylor continued to advance upon him with his whip staff.” When a trespasser or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robertson
...and unwarranted attacks has no application to these facts. 21 Cyc. 828; 1 Bishop, Cr. Law (11th Ed.) 614, 806, and section 636; State v. Taylor, 82 N.C. 554. fourth assignment of error to the charge of the court that if defendants fought willingly, they cannot avail themselves of the princi......
-
Crawford v. State
...not depart upon warning, leaves no room for the application of the maxim, "Molliter manus imposuit." State v. Davis, 80 N.C. 351; State v. Taylor, 82 N.C. 554. If deceased seized his gun and pistol, and warned the defendant and his companions to leave the dwelling, the exigency and necessit......
-
Randell v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co.
...told civilly, to leave, and that she should refuse. 2 Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 985, note; Commonwealth v. Clark, 2 Met. (Mass.) 23; State v. Taylor, 82 N.C. 554; State v. Burke, 82 N.C. 553; Green Goddard, 2 Salk. 641; Thompson v. Berry, 1 Cranch (C. C.) 45; People v. Van Vechten, 2 N. Y. Crim......
-
State v. Kimbrell
...for the jury, and not for the court. State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275; State v. Bullock, 91 N.C. 614; State v. Goode, 130 N.C. 651 ; State v. Taylor, 82 N.C. 554." court is deciding in this case a most important principle, which excludes evidence of threats in the trial of an indictment for an a......