Bennett v. State, 165
| Citation | 230 Md. 562,188 A.2d 142 |
| Decision Date | 06 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 165,165 |
| Parties | Garnette Mae BENNETT v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Page 562
v.
STATE of Maryland.
Page 564
John C. Sullivan, Cumberland, for appellant.
Robert C. Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and James S. Getty, States Atty., for Allegany Co., Cumberland, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
HORNEY, Judge.
Challenging the correctness of the instructions to the jury with respect to the law of self-defense, the defendant (Garnette Mae Bennett) has appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree without capital punishment.
[188 A.2d 143] The defendant shot and killed her husband with a shotgun in the midmorning of January 31, 1962. She did not deny the shooting, but claimed that it was done in self-defense. The victim and the defendant had married and lived together for nearly twenty years, and had had four children--a daughter who lived away from home and three sons who lived with their
Page 565
parents. But the marriage had been a turbulent one in that it was fraught with frequent arguments and bickerings; beatings of the wife by the husband; and at least one act of infidelity on the part of the wife.Early in January of 1962 the couple agreed to separate, he to move out of the marital abode: she to remain therein with the teenage boys. But after the expiration of a fortnight the husband moved back in with his family. As a result, the strained relations between them became even more intensified, and the wife, several days before the homicide, filed a bill for an absolute divorce and a preliminary order to require the husband to leave the home forthwith. When the husband learned of these proceedings, he became enraged and, on both of the two days before the shooting, threatened to take custody of the children and kill his wife. Whereupon she asked two of her sons to show her how to load and handle the gun (ostensibly for the purpose of shooting rats) and subsequently purchased shells for it.
When the husband came home from work at the usual time (about 7:20 a. m.) on the day of the homicide, he went to one of the bedrooms and while he was gone, the wife loaded the shotgun but left it in the gun rack in the kitchen. After the children went off to school, the husband, following a brief argument, went out to purchase whiskey, and, upon his return, he resumed the argument concerning the divorce and custody of the children, but he did not then threaten to kill his wife as he had done on the two preceding days. He cursed her, however, and walked out of the kitchen momentarily into the hallway. While he was out of her presence, the wife took the loaded gun out of the rack and held it by her side where she was standing behind the kitchen table. When the husband returned to the kitchen, he had his jacket over his left arm and a large hunting knife in his right hand. According to the wife, he had a hateful look on his face, and, because she was afraid that he would lunge at her or get her off guard and throw the knife at her, she pointed the gun toward him and pulled the trigger. The discharge struck the husband in the chest. He staggered forward and fell faceward on a chair. And when the wife came to his side he was dead.
Page 566
In a statement given by the defendant to the investigating officers, the defendant, in reply to a question as to how her husband was dressed at the time of the shooting, in addition to informing them that he had the jacket over his arm and the knife in his hand, further stated: 'I already had the gun loaded and he just stopped and stared at me, and I pointed the gun toward him and shot and he yelled 'Oh, Garnette' or 'No, Garnett,' and then he staggered toward me and fell against the chairs at the table.' The defendant further admitted that she had discarded one of the two shells purchased by flushing it down the toilet. The State also produced photographs showing the position of the hunting knife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. State, 17, September Term, 2017
...its charge if it deems correction necessary." Gore v. State , 309 Md. 203, 209, 522 A.2d 1338, 1340 (1987) (citing Bennett v. State , 230 Md. 562, 568, 188 A.2d 142, 144 (1963) ). This Court in Gore explicated the requirements for preserving an alleged jury instruction error: "[T]here must ......
-
Dempsey v. State, 128
...of communicating the court's expression of opinion to the jury is not reviewable on this appeal. Maryland Rule 756, Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 568, 188 A.2d 142 'Assuming for the sake of argument, however, that the question is reviewable and assuming further that there was some impropri......
-
Watts v. State, 17
...its charge if it deems correction necessary." Gore v. State, 309 Md. 203, 209, 522 A.2d 1338, 1340 (1987) (citing Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 568, 188 A.2d 142, 144 (1963)). This Court in Gore explicated the requirements for preserving an alleged jury instruction error: "[T]here must be ......
-
Marr v. State, 2587
...With respect to the first instruction, appellant relies primarily on Gunther v. State, 228 Md. 404, 179 A.2d 880 (1962), Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 188 A.2d 142 (1963), and Rajnic v. State, 106 Md.App. 286, 664 A.2d 432 In Gunther, the defendant shot and killed his brother-in-law with a......