Allen v. United States
Citation | 41 L.Ed. 528,17 S.Ct. 154,164 U.S. 492 |
Decision Date | 07 December 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 371,371 |
Parties | ALLEN v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Sol. Gen. Conrad, for defendant in error.
This was a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas sentencing the plaintiff in error to death for the murder of Philip Henson, a white man, in the Cherokee Nation of the Indian Territory. The defendant was tried and convicted in 1893, and, upon such conviction being set aside by this court (150 U. S. 551, 14 Sup. Ct. 196), was again tried and convicted in 1894. The case was again reversed (157 U. S. 675, 15 Sup. Ct. 720), when Allen was tried for the third time, and convicted, and this writ of error was sued out.
The facts are so fully set forth in the previous reports of the case that it is unnecessary to repeat them here.
We are somewhat embarrassed in the consideration of this case by the voluminousness of the charge, and of the exceptions taken thereto, as well as by the absence of a brief on the part of the plaintiff in error; but the principal assignments of error set forth in the record will be noticed in this opinion.
'If you believe the story as narrated by the two Erne boys, who testified as witnesses, is true,—that is, that the defendant went up the fence with his pistol; that he went through the wire fence, and went out in the wheat field, where Philip Henson was, and met him, first hallooed at him, placed his pistol upon the fence, and stopped the boys, and then went through the wire fence, and went out to where he was, and struck him first in the mouth with his left fist, and at the same time undertook to fire upon him, and that that firing was prevented by the action of Henson in taking hold of the pistol, and it went off into the ground, and then he fired at him, and struck him in the side, and then he fired at him and struck him in the back,—you have a state of facts which would authorize you to say that the killing was done willfully; and, not only that, but to say that it was done with malice aforethought, because that state of case, if that be true, would show the doing of a wrongful act, an illegal act, without just cause or excuse, and in the absence of mitigating facts to reduce the grade of the crime.'
The learned judge was stating in this connection the theory of the prosecution, and, if the facts were as stated by the Ernes, there was no error in saying to the jury, not that they were bound to, but that they were at liberty to, infer not only willfulness, but malice aforethought.
The substance of this instruction is that the intent necessary to constitute malice aforethought need not have existed for any particular time before the act of killing, but that it may spring up at the instant, and may be inferred from the fact of killing. This is within the authorities as applied to the common-law crime of murder, though where the crime is classified, as in some states, proof of deliberate premeditation is necessary to constitute murder in the first degree. U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 91, Fed. Cas. No. 14,868; People v. Clark, 7 N. Y. 385; Whart. Hom. § 33; Whart Cr. Law (10th Ed.) § 117.
This is nothing more than a statement of the familiar proposition that every man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his own act. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 18; Reg. v. Jones, 9 Car. & P. 258; Reg. v. Hill, 8 Car. & P. 274; Reg. v. Beard, Id. 143; People v. Herrick, 13 Wend. 87, 91.
There is no error in this instruction. It is well settled by the authorities that mere words, however aggravating, are not sufficient to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. Com. v. York, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 93, 103; Whart. Hom. § 393; Whart. Cr. Law (10th Ed.) § 455a.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Gainer
... ... 2 The instruction, which is of a type commonly referred to either as the 'Allen charge' or the 'dynamite charge,' has had a controversial history since it was cursorily approved y the United States Supreme Court in the case of Allen v. United States (1896) 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 ... ...
-
Tough v. Ives
... ... Its use has been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528. Better than any ... ...
-
People v. Kimble
... ... [s] whether such a particularly abrasive intrusion is called for in a given situation." (United States v. Searp (6th Cir.1978) 586 F.2d 1117, 1121, italics added.) ... In the ... He is correct; as we recently held in People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 232 Cal.Rptr. 849, 729 P.2d 115, appropriate charging papers should allege ... ...
- People v. Wright
-
Patentee Cannot Assert That An Allegedly Infringed Claim Element Is A Trade Secret
...two grounds: (1) that the district court erred as a matter of law by giving two improper Allen charges, named for Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896); and (2) that the district court failed to properly investigate the possibility of jury taint due to the presence of an extraneous cl......
-
Judicial conduct
...the judge ordinarily gives what has become known as an “Allen Charge” because it is based on language contained in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). The Judge may urge the jury to reconsider and listen to each other, but should follow the language of PJI 1:100. Challenges to cont......
-
Judicial conduct
...the judge may give what has become known as an “Allen Charge” because it is based on language contained in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S. Ct. 154, 41 L. Ed. 528 (1896), and urge the jury to reconsider and listen to each other. The judge, however, should follow the language of P......
-
Table of cases
...186 (4th Dept. 1999), § 14:150 Allen v. Harrington, 156 A.D.2d 854, 550 N.Y.S.2d 79 (3d Dept. 1989), § 19:140 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), § 17:35 Alleva v. United Parcel Service, 112 A.D.3d 543, 978 N.Y.S.2d 32 (1st Dept. 2013), §18:60 Altkrug v. Horowitz, 111 A.D. 420, 97 ......
-
Judicial conduct
...the judge may give what has become known as an “Allen Charge” because it is based on language contained in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896) and urge the jury to reconsider and listen to each other. he judge, however, should follow the language of PJI 1:100. Challenges to content ......