Blalock v. State

Decision Date13 January 1902
Citation79 Miss. 517,31 So. 105
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesHENRY BLALACK v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county. HON. GUION Q. HALL Judge.

Blalack the appellant, was indicted for the murder of one Benjamin Sparkman, was tried and convicted of manslaughter, and appealed to the supreme court.

The homicide occurred at the home of deceased, in Meridian, Miss where appellant was at the time boarding. Just prior to the killing, appellant undertook to whip a little girl who had been reared by the wife of deceased, when deceased interfered, and a difficulty ensued between appellant and deceased, in which difficulty defendant struck deceased with an ax and killed him. There is evidence in the record tending to show that, at the time the fatal blow was struck, the deceased was advancing on defendant with his hand in his pocket in a threatening manner, at the same time using hostile and threatening words, and, while deceased was thus advancing on defendant, defendant struck deceased with an ax which blow caused his death. On the trial of the case in the court below, Horne, a witness for the state, testified, over the objection of the defendant, that he arrested defendant and that on first seeing him he asked him (defendant) why he did not let witness and Hart know of the trouble; that he told defendant that witness and Hart were his friends, and would help him out of the trouble, and that witness and Hart would go on his bond, if necessary; that he told defendant that he did not know whether deceased was then dead or not, but that it would be better for defendant if deceased was dead, as dead men tell no tales; that he asked defendant how it happened, and defendant stated to him while under arrest that Sparkman struck him and tore his shirt, and that he (defendant) then struck Sparkman with the ax.

The second and fourth instructions asked for defendant, and refused by the court below, are as follows:

"2. The court instructs the jury, for the defendant, that if they believe from the evidence that defendant procured the ax with which he struck deceased only for the purpose of self-defense, and did not intend to use it for any other purpose, and that the conduct and words of deceased were such as to induce in (him) a reasonable belief that he was then and there in danger of great bodily harm at the hands of deceased, and that (believing the act was necessary for his self-defense) he struck the fatal blow, they must find defendant not guilty."

"4. The court instructs the jury, for defendant, that the law presumes the defendant innocent, and that the burden of proving beyond all reasonable doubt every material allegation necessary to establish defendant's guilt rests upon the state throughout the trial, and that the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant, and that the law does not require the defendant to prove by his evidence excuse or justification; but if from all the evidence the jury entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether the killing was done in the heat of passion, or proceeded from the principle of self-defense, they will find the defendant not guilty."

Reversed and remanded.

Neville & Wilbourne and W. T. Houston, for appellant.

The modification of the defendant's instruction No. 2 was fatal error, for which it is submitted that the judgment appealed from must be reversed. The instruction as asked authorized the acquittal of the defendant if he took the life of the deceased under the honest and reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger. The instruction finds support in many cases. Long v. State, 52 Miss. 23; Spivey v. State, 58 Miss. 558; Bang v. State, 60 Miss. 571; Ingram v. State, 62 Miss. 142; Godwin v. State, 73 Miss. 873. The instruction as asked perhaps finds its best support in the facts of the case of Marts v. State, 26 Ohio St. 162. The result of the modification was to require that the danger to the life of defendant or of great bodily harm to him should be actual, and it eliminated entirely the idea of apparent danger. It has never been held in this state, or elsewhere, so far as we know, by any court other than the one from which this appeal is taken, that if a defendant charged with homicide reasonably apprehended danger to his life or great bodily harm, and acted under the honest belief that the taking of the life of his adversary was essential to his own self-defense, even though he were mistaken, that such reasonable apprehension of danger, imminent and impending, was not an excuse. The error complained of was accentuated by a similar modification of the fifth instruction asked by appellant, nor was the error cured by any other instruction given in the case. The defendant was entitled to have the principle of the law, for which we contend, and for which he contended in the court below, applied to the concrete facts of the case. Aldrige v. State, 59 Miss. 250; Lamar v. State, 64 Miss. 428; Gerdine v. State, 64 Miss. 798.

The fourth charge asked for appellant should have been given. The burden of proof in a criminal case never changes. Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Owen v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 14 Diciembre 1936
    ...on proper instructions, based on competent and relevant testimony. Cook v. State, 85 Miss. 738; Howell v. State, 98 Miss. 439; Blalock v. State, 79 Miss. 517; Wilkie Collins, 48 Miss. 496; Owens v. State, 80 Miss. 499. None of the instructions given can take the place of the refused instruc......
  • Vance v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 12 Septiembre 1938
    ...... the appellant to kill the deceased to save himself from great. bodily harm "at the very time the fatal shot was. fired.". . . Case v. State, 17 So. 379; Fortenberry v. State, 55 Miss. 403; Ellerbe v. State, 79 Miss. 10, 30 So. 57;. Bang v. State, 69 Miss. 571; Blalock v. State, 79 Miss. 517, 31 So. 105; Hood v. State, . 27 So. 643; Johnson v. State, 27 So. 880;. Leverett v. State, 112 Miss. 394, 73 So. 273;. Cotton v. State, 31 Miss. 504; Kendrick v. State, 55 Miss. 436; Windham v. State, 91 Miss. 845; Long v. State, 52 Miss. 23; Ransom v. ......
  • Dean v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Mayo 1935
    ...... denies due process and equal protection guaranteed by the. Federal Constitution. . . State. ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51;. Randall et al. v. L'Engle, 46 So. 2; 16 C. J. 953; Gentry v. State, 108 Miss. 508; Blalock v. State, 79 Miss. 517; Owen v. State, 80 Miss. 499; Cook v. State, 85 Miss. 738. . . On the. question of the presumption of innocence, we wish to invite. the attention of this court to a decision of the Supreme. Court of the United States, Francis A. Coffin v. U.S. . 156 ......
  • Dean v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 8 Abril 1935
    ...Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51; Randall et al. v. L'Engle, 46 So. 2; 16 C. J. 953; Gentry v. State, 108 Miss. 508; Blalock v. State, 79 Miss. 517; Owen State, 80 Miss. 499; Cook v. State, 85 Miss. 738. On the question of the presumption of innocence, we wish to invite the attent......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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