¶1dissenting in part: A felonious assault, as defined by G.S. 14-32, consists of these essential elements: (1) an assault, (2) with a deadly weapon, (3) with intent to kill, and (4) the infliction of serious injury not resulting in death. S. v. Hefner, 199 N.C. 778, 155 S.E. 879; S. v. Birchfield, 235 N.C. 410, 70 S.E. 2d 5.
¶2The words “with intent to kill” are self-explanatory. S. v. Plemmons, 230 N.C. 56, 52 S.E. 2d 10. An intent to injure does not suffice.
¶3I agree that the evidence for the State afforded a sufficient basis for a verdict that the male defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly *713weapon inflicting serious injury not resulting in death. But, while such evidence indicates clearly that the child was treated shamefully and whipped mercilessly, I do not think the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the assault was made with intent to kill her.
¶4I concur in awarding a new trial for the feme defendant. For the reason stated above, I think a new trial should be awarded the male defendant.
¶5dissenting: The evidence in this case, if true, and the jury found it was, disclosed cruelty almost beyond belief. But I do not think it shows intent to kill. If two grown people had such intent, all either had to do was to grasp the little girl by her throat and maintain the hold for a few seconds, and all would be over. To say the cruel and barbarous treatment was inflicted for the purpose of taking life, taxes credulity. That such conduct on the part of the defendants deserves severe punishment, I concede. But to sustain the verdict and judgment would require stretching the law. The evidence is plenary to show assault, but not intent to kill. I think the trial judge committed error in submitting the felony charge to the jury. On that ground, I vote for a new trial.