Elements of Affray and defenses. Dashiell v. State.


Brief Brief Dashiell v. State, 214 Md. App. 684 (2013)

Issue: Elements of Affray and defenses.

Background: Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  On appeal, three issues were raised: 1) whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that self-defense is not a defense to affray; 2) whether the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider affray as an unlawful underlying act for involuntary manslaughter because the State failed to show that the fight occurred in public or caused terror to the people; and 3) whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that defense of property may be a defense to assault and affray.  Case was reversed and remanded due to issue one.  Issues two and three discussed due to probability of retrial. Id. at 688.


“An ‘affray,’ a common law offense, has been defined as ‘the fighting together of two or more persons, either by mutual consent or otherwise,  in some public place, to the terror of the people.’” Id. at 689 citing Hickman v. State, 193 Md. App. 238, 248 (2010).

“To establish an affray,  the State need only show that the acts and surrounding circumstances were ‘likely to strike terror in anyone,’ not that it actually has in any specific individual.” Id. at 691 citing State v. Schlamp, 390 Md. at 737.

“Self-defense… may be invoked as a defense to affray.” Id. at 691.

“There are two ways a fight may be deemed ‘mutual’ for the purposes of affray.  To be found guilty, a person ‘must be unlawfully fighting,  either by agreement,  or have brought the fight himself.’  But whether ‘mutuality’ means that there was an agreement to fight or that the accused provoked the fight, mutuality remains a question of fact and thus falls within the provenance of the finder of fact.” Id. at 695 citing Atkins v. State,  421 Md. 434, 443 (2011).

“It is incumbent,  upon the trial court, upon request,  to instruct the jury regarding self-defense,  whenever that issue s generated by the evidence.” Id. at 695.

About Site Administrator: Paul Notarianni

Feel free to view and download any of the content on this site IF you accept the following conditions: 1) You agree to not forward or distribute any of the content of this site for profit or financial gain. 2) You understand that this site and all of its content is for informational purposes only. 3) You understand that the Western Maryland Advocate is not an advertisement, no legal services of any kind are being offered. 4) You understand that no attorney-client relationship exists simply by nature of viewing this site and downloading/viewing its contents. 5) You understand that nothing on this site or downloaded from it should be used as an alternative to discussing your case with a competent licensed attorney in your particular jurisdiction. 6) You understand that the Western Maryland Advocate is an independent experiment. In other words, this site is in no way, whatsoever, affiliated with any government agency or law firm. 7) You understand that no warranty or guarantee is made that the information on this site or the content posted on it is accurate, up to date, or current. 8) You understand that the Western Maryland Advocate is not responsible for the content on any associated link or advertisement. Paul J. Notarianni is the administrator for the Western Maryland Advocate. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland and may be contacted at Paulnotarianni@gmail.com
This entry was posted in - Assault & Affray, - Criminal Law, -- B.B.'s. Brief Briefs and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.