## Facts

- W. P. Horton hunted turkeys on another person’s land in Franklin County, North Carolina.
- A local statute required written consent from the landowner (or agent) to hunt on another’s land in certain counties; Horton lacked such written consent.
- While hunting, Horton discharged his firearm and unintentionally killed Charlie Hunt, believing he was shooting at a wild turkey.
- The jury found Horton’s hunting was not inherently dangerous to human life and that he was not reckless in hunting or handling the firearm.
- The jury found the shooting was not grossly careless or negligent and did not show moral turpitude or indifference to human life.
- The only illegality found was violation of the written-permission hunting statute, a misdemeanor punishable by a small fine.
- The jury returned a special verdict with detailed factual findings; the trial court entered judgment convicting Horton of manslaughter based on those findings.

## Issues

1. Whether an unintentional killing during an unlawful act that is not inherently dangerous, and is committed without negligence, constitutes manslaughter solely because the act was unlawful.
2. Whether violation of a local written-permission hunting statute is malum in se or merely malum prohibitum for purposes of unlawful-act homicide liability.
3. Whether the statute’s purpose supports treating an accidental shooting during its violation as criminal homicide absent negligence or dangerous conduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the manslaughter conviction.
- The court held that an unintentional homicide committed without negligence during an unlawful act that is not inherently dangerous is criminal only when the underlying act is malum in se, not when it is merely malum prohibitum.
- The court classified the written-permission hunting violation as malum prohibitum and not a statute aimed at preventing accidental homicide.
- Based on the special verdict’s findings (no negligence, no dangerous conduct, wholly unintentional killing), the homicide was excusable and not criminal.

## Legal Principles

- Where a defendant is free from negligence and the underlying act is not dangerous to human life, an unintentional homicide is a criminal offense only if the unlawful act is malum in se, not merely malum prohibitum.
- Malum in se refers to conduct regarded as naturally wrongful (commonly associated with traditional common-law wrongs); malum prohibitum refers to conduct made unlawful by statute without being inherently wrongful.
- A regulatory statutory violation with a minor penalty, without evidence of negligence or dangerous conduct, does not convert an accidental killing into manslaughter absent legislative intent directed to preventing such harms.
- When a case is submitted on a special verdict, the court is bound by the jury’s factual findings and applies the law to those findings.

## Conclusion

The court held that Horton’s accidental shooting, committed without negligence while violating only a minor regulatory hunting statute, was excusable homicide; unlawful-act manslaughter requires an underlying act that is malum in se or conduct that is negligent or inherently dangerous.


State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945 (N.C. 1905)