Court Opinion

ID: 9850613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:00:03.438619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:40.373829
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s conclusion that the trial court should have allowed the motion to dismiss against Juvenile. Specifically, I take issue with the majority’s conclusion that the physical altercation between Juvenile and another resident of the Home did not occur in a public place.
As stated in the majority opinion, a simple affray has clearly been defined “as a fight between two or more persons in a public place so *304as to cause terror to the people.” In re Drakeford, 32 N.C. App. 113, 118, 230 S.E.2d 779, 782 (1977). However, since our courts have never clearly defined a “public place” in relation to this misdemeanor, the majority defines the term using Black’s Law Dictionary. Even though I agree that this definition is generally applicable to simple affrays, our case law indicates that the number of persons viewing the alleged affray must be considered as well.
In State v. Fritz, 133 N.C. 725, 45 S.E. 957 (1903), a defendant appealed an order finding him guilty of simple affray for engaging in a fight with another man at a corner tree midway between their homes and in the presence of seven other people. The defendant argued, in part, that he was erroneously convicted of simple affray because the fight did not occur in a public place. Our Supreme Court affirmed the guilty verdict and held that the fighting of two persons in the presence of others made the location a public place. Id. at 728, 45 S.E. at 958.
Although Fritz does not specifically define a “public place,” it does indicate that the presence of several people can qualify a location that is normally private property as a public place for simple affray purposes. Here, the evidence showed that a physical altercation between Juvenile and another juvenile occurred on the grounds of the Home. The altercation took place in the presence of two counselors and several residents of the Home. Thus, it is my conclusion that the grounds of the Home are a “public place” in light of the facts in this case and the holding in Fritz. To find otherwise would lend itself to a very strict interpretation of what constitutes a “public place,” thereby preventing the police from ever being able to arrest and charge a person with simple affray if that individual enters into a fight with another person on private property regardless of how many people are present and placed in terror.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Juvenile’s motion to dismiss.