State v. Freeman.
127 N.C. 544, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 128, 37 S.E. 206 (1900)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal prosecution for an affray, the burden is on the State to prove that a fight, not merely a friendly scuffle, occurred. Only after the State establishes that a criminal offense has taken place does the burden shift to an individual defendant to prove a justification or excuse for their involvement.
Facts:
- Defendants Robert Freeman, Bud McKenzie, Henry Freeman, and Sam McLeod were returning from a fishing party along a public road.
- All the defendants were under the influence of liquor.
- The defendants engaged in what they described as a 'friendly scuffle' in the presence of other people.
- During the scuffle, defendant A. A. McKenzie caught his foot under a pole and fell.
- Defendant W. R. McKenzie also fell over the same pole, landing on A. A. McKenzie.
- A bystander, Sewell Freeman, lifted one of the defendants to his feet.
- The defendant who was helped up then picked up a small stick from the ground but did not offer or attempt to use it.
- The defendants testified at trial that they were not angry with one another and that the engagement was entirely friendly.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Freeman, Bud McKenzie, Henry Freeman, and Sam McLeod were indicted for affray in a trial court.
- The defendants were tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the defendants guilty of simple assault.
- Following the verdict, the State accepted a verdict of not guilty as to defendants Sam McLeod and Henry Freeman.
- The trial court entered a judgment fining the remaining defendants fifty dollars each.
- Defendants Henry Freeman and A. A. McKenzie (identified as an appellant) appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
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 defendant's admission to engaging in a 'scuffle' in a public place automatically shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove the encounter was friendly and not a criminal affray?
Opinions:
Majority - Furches, J.
No. A defendant's admission to a 'scuffle' does not shift the burden of proof, as the State must first establish that a criminal affray occurred. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that the defendants' admission to scuffling shifted the burden to them to prove the encounter was friendly. An affray requires a fight, not a friendly scuffle, and the defendants only admitted to the latter. The presumption of innocence requires the State to prove the elements of the crime. The burden can only shift to a defendant to justify their actions after the State has proven that an affray—the criminal offense—actually took place. To apply the burden-shifting rule before a breach of the peace is established violates the defendant's fundamental right to be presumed innocent by compelling the defendant to prove their innocence of the State's charge.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the State's primary burden of proof in an affray prosecution, reinforcing the presumption of innocence. The court draws a clear distinction between the state proving the existence of the crime itself (the corpus delicti) and an individual defendant's subsequent burden to raise a defense. This decision prevents the state from using a defendant's ambiguous admission, like engaging in a 'scuffle,' to bypass its obligation to prove every element of the crime. It ensures that conduct which may not be criminal is not presumed to be so, thereby protecting individuals from having to prove their innocence before a crime has even been established.
