Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Davis heard a child crying in the apartment next to his on Saturday evening. On Sunday morning, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Davis heard a small child screaming and hollering and heard a popping sound coming from the same apartment next door. The sound of the child screaming and hollering and the popping sound lasted for approximately one to one and one-half hours. Davis made a complaint to the Police Department requesting that they investigate the noise that he was hearing. An officer knocked on the door of the apartment next to the Davis apartment. A Miss Devine opened the door and allowed the officer to enter the apartment, where he stayed for a few minutes before leaving to obtain a search warrant. The officer returned with a warrant. The officer saw Devine, D, and George Hoskins. The officer also saw five small children in a corner of the apartment and noticed cuts and bruises on the bodies of the children. One of the children, Lamont, was a small child in diapers. The officer observed red marks on the chest of Lamont as well as a swollen lip, bruises on his legs and back, and other bruises, scarring, and cuts. At trial three of these small children, Roderick, ten years old, Stephen, eight years old, and Derrick, seven years old, testified that Hoskins hit their brother Lamont with a belt repeatedly over an extended period of time on Sunday morning. Each child testified that D, their mother, was in the room with Hoskins and Lamont)at the time this beating occurred. They stated that D looked on the entire time the beating took place but did not say anything or do anything to stop the beating. Dr. David L. Ingram testified that there was blood in Lamont's urine which resulted in the loss of a substantial quantity of blood and required that Lamont be given a blood transfusion. Dr. Ingram testified that the marks on Lamont were caused by hard blows to the body occurring less than a week prior to his examination. P proceeded on the theory that D aided and abetted Hoskins in the commission of the assault on her child and was, therefore, guilty as a principal to the offense charged. D was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury in violation of G.S. 14-32(b). D contends that the instructions permitted the jury to convict her for failing to interfere with or attempt to prevent the commission of a felony. She argues that the law of this State does not allow a conviction in any case for aiding and abetting the commission of a crime absent some affirmative act of commission by the defendant assisting or encouraging the commission of the crime or indicating the defendant's approval and willingness to assist. The appeals court reversed and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co