State v. Straw
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions from the District Court, Cole, J. ' Indictment for a riot against two defendants, charging that they with others, armed with clubs, &c., unlawfully, riotously, violently and tumultuously assembled themselves together and broke, down and demolished a dwellinghouse, to the terror, &c. The testimony tended to prove, that two persons only were engaged in the physical act charged, but that a third person was aiding and abetting them by his presence.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions from the District Court, Cole, J. ' Indictment for a riot against two defendants, charging that they with others, armed with clubs, &c., unlawfully, riotously, violently and tumultuously assembled themselves together and broke, down and demolished a dwellinghouse, to the terror, &c. The testimony tended to prove, that two persons only were engaged in the physical act charged, but that a third person was aiding and abetting them by his presence. The defendants contended, that in order to prove a riot, it was necessary for the government to show, that three persons were engaged in…
1Opinion of the Court
Shepley, C. J., orally. —
It was contended at the trial by the defendants that, to prove a riot, it was necessary for the government to show that three persons were engaged in some illegal physical act; and the counsel have now argued as if this question was raised upon the exceptions. But what counsel contended for, is no ground for exceptions. The Court must first be requested to charge upon the point made, and if the request is refused, exceptions may be taken. The instructions which the Judge gave to the jury, and the legal effect of them, are the only questions which can now be raised…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Haefeli v. Woodrich Engineering Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Green v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- People v. O'loughlinUtah Supreme Court · 1881
- State v. WinkelsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- State v. CodyOregon Supreme Court · 1890