State v. . Stalcup

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Stalcup

23 N.C. 30

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 23 N.C. 30 (State v. . Stalcup) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Stalcup, 23 N.C. 30 (N.C. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Daniel, Judge.

The case states that the defendants assembled, in consequence of the summons of the officer to aid him in the execution of a state’s warrant, isssued against the prosecutor, for a forcible trespass. Such an assembly cannot be considered an unlawful assembly. But, wé think, an unlawful assembly is a constituent and a necessary part of the offence of a riot, It must precede the unlawful act which consummates the offence of riot. Hawkins accordingly defines a riot to be a tumultuous disturbance of the peace, by three persons or more, assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another against all who shall oppose them, and afterwards putting the design into execution, in a terrific and violent manner, whether the object in question be lawful or otherwise. An indictment for a riot, always avers that the defendants unlawfully assembled. And this averment must (we think) be proved on the trial, as well as the subsequent riotous acts of the defendants, before they can be convicted of a riot. Rex v. Birt. 5 Carr. & P. 154. Archb. Crim. L. 446, (5 edition.)

The judgment therefore must be set aside, and a new trial awarded, because the defendants have been improperly convicted on the first count in the indictment.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daniel, Judge.

The case states that the defendants assembled, in consequence of the summons of the officer to aid him in the execution of a state’s warrant, isssued against the prosecutor, for a forcible trespass. Such an assembly cannot be considered an unlawful assembly. But, wé think, an unlawful assembly is a constituent and a necessary part of the offence of a riot, It must precede the unlawful act which consummates the offence of riot. Hawkins accordingly defines a riot to be a tumultuous disturbance of the peace, by three persons or more, assembling together of their own authority, with an intent mutually to assist one another against all who shall oppose them, and afterwards putting the design into execution, in a terrific and violent manner, whether the object in question be lawful or otherwise. An indictment for a riot, always avers that the defendants unlawfully assembled. And this averment must (we think) be proved on the trial, as well as the subsequent riotous acts of the defendants, before they can be convicted of a riot. Rex v. Birt. 5 Carr. & P. 154. Archb. Crim. L. 446, (5 edition.)

The judgment therefore must be set aside, and a new trial awarded, because the defendants have been improperly convicted on the first count in the indictment.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

United States v. James Bridgeman, United States of America v. Henry B. Johnson, United States of America v. William Brown, United States of America v. Robert G. Matthews, United States of America v. Terry L. Burgin, United States of America v. Keith G. Greenfield, United States of America v. James R. Langley, United States of America v. Henry B. Johnson, United States of America v. Henry Johnson, United States of America v. Henry B. Johnson

523 F.2d 1099 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)

United States v. Bridgeman

523 F.2d 1099 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)

State v. Brooks

215 S.E.2d 111 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)

State v. Brooks

210 S.E.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)

State v. Rose

111 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)

State v. Cole