Addington v. United States

Decision Date01 February 1897
Docket NumberNo. 579,579
Citation41 L.Ed. 679,17 S.Ct. 288,165 U.S. 184
PartiesADDINGTON v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

C. L. Addington, pro se.

Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, C. L. Addington, and one T. D. Buchannon, 'late of the Choctaw Nation, Red River county, Indian Territory,' were charged by indictment in the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas with the crime of having, on the 28th day of June, 1895, in said county, killed and murdered one Oscar Hodges, 'a white person, and not an Indian, nor a citizen of the Indian Territory, nor a citizen of any Indian nation or tribe.'

The defendants pleaded separately not guilty. Buchannon was found not guilty, and Addington was found guilty of murder, as charged in the indictment. A motion by Addington for a new trial having been made and overruled, the accused was sentenced to suffer death by hanging.

Addington subsequently moved in arrest of judgment, upon various grounds, and that motion was overruled.

1. The first 10 assignments of error are based upon a bill of exceptions setting out simply the grounds upon which the accused asked that a new trial be granted to him. It is only necessary to say that the refusal of the court to grant a new trial cannot be assigned for error in this court. Blitz v. U. S., 153 U. S. 312, 14 Sup. Ct. 924.

2. The eleventh assignment of error relates to the instruction given upon the subject of manslaughter. That instruction was in these words: 'Manslaughter, as applied to a case of this character, is the intentional taking of human life, but the distinguishing trait between manslaughter and murder is the absence of malice. It must spring from a gross provocation, and of such character as to temporarily render the party incapable of that cool reflection that otherwise makes it murder. Of course, the defendant intends to do what he does, but he must be laboring at the time he performs the act under intense mental excitement, such as would render any ordinarily prudent person for the time being incapable of that cool reflection that otherwise makes it murder. In that state of case, the law does not wholly excuse the offense; but the law, in its charity for the imperfections and weakness of human nature, reduces it from murder to manslaughter.'

The statutes of the United States provide that any person who, within any of the places or upon any of the waters described in section 5339, 'unlawfully and willfully, but without malice, strikes, stabs, wounds or shoots at, or otherwise injures another, of which striking, stabbing, wounding or shooting or other injury such other person dies, either on land or sea, within or without the United States, is guilty of the crime of manslaughter.'

The accused contends that, under this statute, the taking of human life without malice, even though it be intentional, is not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • U.S. v. Branch
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 2 Agosto 1996
    ...or violation of law on his part is the reason of his expectation of an attack"); Addington v. Page 718 United States, 165 U.S. 184, 187-88, 17 S.Ct. 288, 289-90, 41 L.Ed. 679 (1897) (same); Gourko v. United States, 153 U.S. 183, 191, 14 S.Ct. 806, 809, 38 L.Ed. 680 (1894) (same); Rowe v. Un......
  • United States v. Dressler
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 28 Mayo 1940
    ...150 U.S. 91, 14 S.Ct. 10, 37 L.Ed. 1010; Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 16 S.Ct. 93, 40 L.Ed. 244; Addington v. United States, 165 U.S. 184, 17 S.Ct. 288, 41 L.Ed. 679; Boyd v. United States, 9 Cir., 30 F.2d 900; Block v. United States, 2 Cir., 9 F.2d 618; Neely v. United States, 4......
  • Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 9 Enero 1933
    ...312, 14 S.Ct. 924, 38 L.Ed. 725; Clune v. United States, 159 U.S. 590, 591, 16 S.Ct. 125, 40 L.Ed. 269; Addington v. United States, 165 U.S. 184, 185, 17 S.Ct. 288, 41 L.Ed. 679; Pickett v. United States, 216 U.S. 456, 461, 30 S.Ct. 265, 54 L.Ed. 566. 4 New York, C. & H.R.R. Co. v. Fraloff,......
  • United States v. Peterson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 29 Junio 1973
    ...762, 767 (1954). 45 Bird v. United States, 187 U.S. 118, 128-131, 23 S.Ct. 42, 47 L.Ed. 100 (1902); Addington v. United States, 165 U.S. 184, 186-187, 17 S.Ct. 288, 41 L.Ed. 679 (1897); Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550, 560, 563, 15 S.Ct. 962, 39 L.Ed. 1086 (1895); Gourko v. United Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Black rage and the criminal law: a principled approach to a polarized debate.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 143 No. 6, June - June - June 1995
    • 1 Junio 1995
    ...(Cal. 1076) (permitting the jury to determine reasonable cooling-off time in an extreme case). (160) See e.g., Addington v. United States, 165 U.S. 184, 186 (1897) (holding adequate a provocation that "would render any ordinary prudent person for the time being incapable of that cool reflec......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT