White v. State

• Decision Date: 10 October 1912
• Docket Number: 22,183
• Citation: 99 N.E. 417,178 Ind. 317
• Parties: White v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

99 N.E. 417

178 Ind. 317

White v. State of Indiana

No. 22,183

Supreme Court of Indiana

October 10, 1912

From Gibson Circuit Court, Herdis F. Clements, Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Arthur White. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Thomas Duncan, for appellant.

Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr and James E. McCullough, for the State.

OPINION

Cox, C. J.

Appellant was convicted by a jury in the lower court of the crime of assault and battery on the person of one Davis, with intent to commit manslaughter. He seeks a reversal of the judgment of the trial court, and relies on alleged error in overruling his motion for a new trial to secure it. The only claims of errors pressed on us by appellant are involved in the refusal of the trial court to give instruction five, which appellant tendered and requested the court to give to the jury; and the giving of instructions eight and ten, which the court gave to the jury of its own motion.

Instruction five in part involved the law of self-defense, and by its terms appellant sought to have the jury instructed that appellant, if first assailed, "had the right then and there to resist such assault with force and he had the right to use as much force in overcoming and disarming his adversary as he, the defendant, viewed from his standpoint at that time, did reasonably believe was necessary to prevent loss of life or great bodily harm at the hands of said Davis." And it is contended by appellant's counsel that error was committed in refusing to give this instruction, for the reason that, as claimed by counsel, in none of those given was the jury charged that whether appellant had reasonable cause to believe that he was in danger must be judged from his standpoint. Counsel is in error in the contention that appellant's right of self-defense in this respect was not covered by the instructions given by the court. While the identical words and the same arrangement of them did not appear in instructions given, yet in instruction eight, given by the court of its own motion, and in instructions two and nine given at the request of appellant, the jury was told in plain and unequivocal words that appellant had a right to act on the appearances, and if from these he honestly and reasonably believed that he was in danger of suffering great bodily harm or losing his life by an assault on him by Davis, he had the right to repel such assault by all the force which appeared to him to be reasonably necessary to protect himself from loss of life or great bodily harm at the hands of Davis, even though the jury should find that he...