In Re May
584 S.E.2d 271, 357 N.C. 423, 2003 N.C. LEXIS 833 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the common-law offense of affray, a location qualifies as a 'public place' only if it is either generally open to public traffic or is private property where an altercation is visible or audible to the public on a nearby thoroughfare. Witnesses who are not present by happenstance but have a close association with the combatants or the private location, such as co-residents or employees, do not constitute 'the public' for the purpose of establishing the element of terror.
Facts:
- An eleven-year-old juvenile was a resident at the Methodist Home for Children (the Home), a group home.
- On August 1, 2001, the juvenile and another resident began arguing on the front grounds of the Home.
- The argument escalated into a physical altercation involving pushing, shoving, grabbing, scratching, and pulling hair.
- The fight, which started, stopped, and rekindled, was witnessed by two adult employees of the Home and two other juvenile residents.
- The entire altercation took place on the private property of the Home.
- An employee, David Hughins, called for law enforcement intervention because the employees were unable to control the combatants.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a juvenile petition in district court alleging the juvenile committed the common-law offense of affray.
- Following a hearing, the trial court judge adjudicated the juvenile delinquent, having concluded the State proved the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The juvenile was ordered to serve fourteen days in a detention center, with seven of those days stayed.
- The juvenile appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, reversed the trial court's decision, holding there was insufficient evidence to establish the 'public place' element of affray.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a fight between two residents on the private grounds of a group home, witnessed only by other residents and employees, occur in a 'public place' sufficient to satisfy an essential element of the common-law crime of affray?
Opinions:
Majority - Brady, Justice
No. A fight between residents on the private grounds of a group home, witnessed only by employees and other residents, does not occur in a 'public place' for the purposes of an affray. The court clarified that the crime of affray requires three elements: (1) a fight, (2) in a public place, and (3) causing terror to the public. A 'public place' is either a location generally accessible to the public (like a street or park) or private property from which the fight is visible or audible to the public on a thoroughfare. The State presented no evidence that the Home's grounds met this second definition. Furthermore, the court held that the 'terror to the people' element cannot be met when the only witnesses are associates of the combatants, not members of the general public present by happenstance. Because the witnesses here were co-residents and employees, they had strong ties to the facility and were not 'the public'; thus, their presence did not transform the private property into a public place.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the common-law offense of affray in North Carolina, establishing a stricter definition for both the 'public place' and 'terror to the people' elements. By focusing on the association between witnesses and combatants, the court moves away from a simple numerical count of spectators. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for the State to prosecute for affray when fights occur in semi-private settings like schools, workplaces, or residential facilities, as individuals present in those contexts are less likely to be considered 'the public'. The ruling effectively limits the crime's application to altercations that genuinely disturb public peace and order.
