## Facts

- Piver, a white boy “about 13 or 14,” was returning home with a gun along a public road when an enslaved Black man approached from the opposite direction.
- Piver spoke “jocosely” to the man, saying, “stand off or I will shoot you; my gun is charged with buck shot.”
- The man continued forward; Piver went around and overtook him on the other side of the street.
- The man shoved Piver, forcing him back across the road; Piver nearly fell but caught himself with his hands.
- After rising, Piver fired the gun at the man, killing him.
- Piver was indicted for the murder of the enslaved man, and the matter reached the Court of Conference sitting as the appellate tribunal.

## Issues

1. Whether a boy about 13–14 years old could be held criminally responsible for homicide under common-law principles of infancy.
2. Whether the circumstances (jocular exchange, shove by the victim, immediate shooting with a loaded gun) supported a finding of malice sufficient for murder, or instead reduced the offense to a lesser grade of homicide or excused it.

## Decision

- The court treated Piver as criminally responsible despite his youth, consistent with the common-law view that capacity between ages seven and fourteen is rebuttable and may be found near age fourteen.
- The court did not treat the victim’s shove or the encounter’s jocular start as automatically excusing the killing or requiring mitigation as a matter of law.
- The intentional discharge of a gun known to be loaded with buckshot supported an inference of malice or serious culpability, leaving the degree of homicide to be determined under common-law distinctions.

## Legal Principles

- Under common law, children under seven are conclusively incapable of crime; between seven and fourteen incapacity is presumed but rebuttable; near fourteen, a child may be treated as capable of criminal intent when the circumstances show understanding and purposeful action.
- Malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon (such as firing a loaded gun at another person) absent adequate justification or excuse.
- Provocation such as a shove may be relevant to degree of homicide, but it does not automatically reduce a killing to manslaughter; the fact-finder must weigh the provocation against the lethal nature of the response.
- The prosecution of homicide did not depend, in the court’s stated analysis, on the victim’s enslaved status; the focus remained on capacity, malice, provocation, and use of a deadly weapon.

## Conclusion

State v. Piver stands for the proposition that a near-fourteen-year-old can be held answerable for homicide when evidence shows awareness and intentional use of a deadly weapon, and that minor provocation may bear on the grade of homicide without necessarily negating malice.


State v. Piver, 3 N.C. 79 (N.C. Ct. Conf. 1799)