Opinion ID: 1224549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Warrant for Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Text: This warrant charged that defendant did willfully, maliciously and unlawfully assault the person of one B. B. Coats with a deadly weapon, to wit, a gallon glass jar by threatening to hit him with the said jar, etc. Considering the sufficiency of an indictment for the statutory crime of felonious assault as defined in G.S. § 14-32, this Court held a certain knife was a sufficient description of the weapon. State v. Randolph, 228 N.C. 228, 45 S.E.2d 132. Decision was based on the general rule that an indictment following substantially the language of the statute as to the essential elements of the offense meets legal requirements. The warrant under consideration does not purport to charge a statutory crime. It purports to charge an aggravated assault, that is, an assault with a deadly weapon. The requisites of an indictment or warrant charging the criminal offense of assault with a deadly weapon are set forth in 6 C.J.S. Assault and Battery § 110 g(2), as follows: In an indictment for an assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon, the dangerous or deadly character of the weapon must be averred, either in the language of the statute, or by a statement of facts from which the court can see that it necessarily was such. It is only necessary, however, to describe and charge the weapon to be deadly or dangerous where it is a weapon the ordinary name of which does not, ex vi termini, import its deadly or dangerous character; if it is a weapon the ordinary name of which imports its deadly or dangerous character, ex vi termini, it is sufficient to describe it by its name, without alleging that it was a deadly or dangerous weapon. In State v. Porter, 101 N.C. 713, 7 S.E. 902, it was held that, to sustain an indictment as sufficiently charging an assault with a deadly weapon, it must appear from the indictment that the weapon, ex vi termini, is a deadly weapon, or that the description of the weapon and the circumstances of its use are sufficient to show its character as a deadly weapon. Smith, C.J., for the Court, said: The present indictment manifestly falls short of this requirement; for, while called a `deadly weapon' it is designated simply as a `stick,' with no description of its size, weight, or other qualities or properties, from which it can be seen to be a deadly or dangerous implement, calculated in its use to put in peril life, or inflict great physical injury upon the assailed. True, there are borderline cases, such as State v. Phillips, 104 N.C. 786, 10 S.E. 463, in which an indictment charging as assault upon one W. R. Butler, with a certain deadly weapon, to-wit, with a club,  etc., was held sufficient. Even so, the authority of State v. Porter, supra, was recognized; and, based on cited definitions, Avery, J., for the Court, concluded that the word club meant not only a large, but a heavy, stick, suitable for use as an offensive weapon. We are constrained to hold that a warrant charging an assault upon a named person with a gallon glass jar by threatening to hit him with the said jar does not sufficiently charge an assault with a deadly weapon to support a verdict and judgment for that offense. It contains no allegations as to the manner of defendant's use of the gallon glass jar other than the general allegation that defendant was threatening to hit the person alleged to have been assaulted with said jar. Obviously, the warrant was sufficient to charge an unlawful assault. Although the court below instructed the jury as to circumstances under which they might return a verdict of guilty of simple assault, they returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Under the circumstances, the verdict of guilty as charged must be considered a verdict of guilty of simple assault. Hence, the judgment is vacated; and the cause is remanded for pronouncement of a new judgment based on a conviction of simple assault. Having considered all assignments of error brought forward in defendant's brief, the conclusions reached are as follows: With reference to the prosecutions for Larcency and Disorderly Conduct, the verdicts and judgments are vacated; and in respect thereto the court below will enter judgments dismissing these prosecutions. With reference to the prosecution for Resisting Arrest, the verdict and the judgment, except as to the time the sentence will begin, are not disturbed; and the case is remanded to the end that the court below shall enter a judgment specifying the time for the beginning of the sentence. With reference to the prosecution for Assault with a Deadly Weapon, the verdict will stand as a verdict of guilty of simple assault; but the judgment pronounced thereon is vacated. The court below will pronounce a new judgment for a term not exceeding thirty days and provide therein when the sentence, if any, will begin. Error and remanded.