State v. Fritz.
1903 N.C. LEXIS 122, 45 S.E. 957, 133 N.C. 725 (1903)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of dueling requires an agreement to fight with deadly weapons or under circumstances that permit the taking of a life. A defendant indicted for a greater offense, such as dueling, may be convicted of a lesser included offense, such as affray, if the evidence supports it.
Facts:
- Fritz went to John Padgett’s house where Hollifield was staying and offered to fight Hollifield, stating he would meet him anywhere for a fair fight.
- No specific time or place was agreed upon that night.
- The next day, Hollifield sent Padgett to tell Fritz to come down and fight.
- Padgett delivered the message, and Fritz agreed to meet at a specific corner tree.
- The agreement was explicitly for a 'fair fight with fists and hands' and that they would 'not to use any deadly weapon.'
- Fritz and Hollifield met at the agreed-upon location in the presence of seven other people.
- The two men fought with their fists and hands until they were separated.
- No serious damage resulted from the fight.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Fritz, and another man, Hollifield, were indicted for sending, accepting a challenge, and fighting a duel.
- Fritz was tried alone in the Superior Court.
- The jury returned a special verdict, laying out the specific facts of the encounter.
- Based on the special verdict, the trial court judge instructed the jury to find Fritz not guilty of fighting a duel.
- The trial court judge then instructed the jury to find Fritz guilty of an affray under the same indictment.
- The jury found Fritz not guilty of dueling but guilty of affray.
- The trial court discharged the defendant on the dueling charge and imposed a fine of ten dollars for the affray.
- The State appealed the trial court's judgment of 'not guilty' on the dueling charge.
- The defendant, Fritz, appealed the trial court's judgment of 'guilty' on the affray charge.
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 prearranged, mutual fight using only fists and hands, with an explicit agreement not to use deadly weapons, constitute the crime of dueling?
Opinions:
Majority - Glare, C. J.
No. A prearranged fistfight without deadly weapons does not constitute the crime of dueling. The court reasoned that a duel is defined, both by dictionaries and at common law, as a combat between two persons fought with deadly weapons by agreement. The explicit agreement between Fritz and Hollifield to fight only with fists and hands and not use deadly weapons removed the essential element required for the crime of dueling. However, the facts found by the jury clearly constituted an affray, which is a mutual fighting by consent in a public place. Because dueling is an aggravated form of affray, it is permissible to convict a defendant of the lesser included offense of affray under an indictment for dueling.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the essential elements of dueling in North Carolina, narrowly defining the offense to require the use or intended use of deadly weapons. It distinguishes the historically severe crime of dueling from common brawls, preventing prosecutors from elevating mutual combat cases to a charge that carries extreme penalties like permanent disqualification from public office. The case also reaffirms the well-established procedural rule of lesser included offenses, allowing for judicial efficiency by permitting a conviction on a less serious but related charge when the evidence does not support the primary, greater charge.
