Brown v. United States, 103
| Decision Date | 16 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 103,103 |
| Citation | 256 U.S. 335,65 L.Ed. 961,18 A.L.R. 1276,41 S.Ct. 501 |
| Parties | BROWN v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. James R. Dougherty, of Beeville, Tex., E. C. Brandenburg, of Washington, D. C., and W. E. Pope, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 336-337 intentionally omitted] Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 337-341 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree committed upon one Hermis at a place in Texas within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 257 Fed. 46, 168 C. C. A. 258. A writ of certiorari was granted by this Court. 250 U. S. 637, 39 Sup. Ct. 494, 63 L. Ed. 1183. Two questions are raised. The first is whether the indictment is sufficient, inasmuch as it does not allege that the place of the homicide was acquired by the United States 'for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building,' although it does allege that it was acquired from the State of Texas by the United States for the exclusive use of the United States for its public purposes and was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the same. Penal Code of March 4, 1909, c. 321, § 272, Third; 35 Stat. 1088 (Comp. St. § 10445); Constitution, art. 1, § 8. In view of our opinion upon the second point we think it unnecessary to do more than to refer to the discussion in the Court below upon this.
The other question concerns the instructions at the trial. There had been trouble between Hermis and the defendant for a long time. There was evidence that Hermis had twice assaulted the defendant with a knife and had made threats communicated to the defendant that the next time, one of them would go off in a black box. On the day in question the defendant was at the place above mentioned superintending excavation work for a postoffice. In view of Hermis's threats he had taken a pistol with him and had laid it in his coat upon a dump. Hermis was driven up by a witness, in a cart to be loaded, and the defendant said that certain earth was not to be removed, whereupon Hermis came toward him, the defendant says, with a knife. The defendant retreated some twenty or twenty-five feet to where his coat was and got his pistol. Hermis was striking at him and the defendant fired four shots and killed him. The judge instructed the jury among other things that 'it is necessary to remember, in considering the question of self defence, that the party assaulted is always under the obligation to retreat so long as retreat is open to him, provided that he can do so without subjecting himself to the danger of death or great bodily harm.' The instruction was reinforced by the further intimation that unless 'retreat would have appeared to a man of reasonable prudence, in the position of the defendant, as involving danger of death or serious bodily harm' the defendant was not entitled to stand his ground. An instruction to the effect that if the defendant had reasonable grounds of apprehension that he was in danger of losing his life or of suffering serious bodily harm from Hermis he was not bound to retreat was refused. So the question is brought out with sufficient clearness whether the formula laid down by the Court and often repeated by the ancient law is adequate to the protection of the defendant's rights.
It is useless to go into the developments of the law from the time when a man who had killed another no matter how innocently had to get his pardon, whether of grace or of course. Concrete cases or illustrations stated in the early law in conditions very different from the present, like the reference to retreat in Coke, Third Inst. 55, and elsewhere, have had a tendency to ossify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeJesus
...upon any incapacitating force as long as the defendant believes that he is fighting for his life. Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 344, 41 S.Ct. 501, 502, 65 L.Ed. 961 (1921); Perry v. United States, 422 F.2d 697 (D.C.Cir.1969); Inge v. United States, 356 F.2d 345 (D.C.Cir.1966); Commo......
-
State v. Kelly
...reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife," Justice Holmes aptly said, Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343, 41 S.Ct. 501, 502, 65 L.Ed. 961, 963 (1921); and the law accordingly requires only a reasonable, not necessarily a correct, judgment. See State v. Hippl......
-
United States v. Bink
...United States v. Cornell, Fed.Cas.No.14,868; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 257 F. 46, reversed on other grounds, 256 U.S. 335, 41 S.Ct. 501, 65 L.Ed. 961, 18 A.L.R. 1276. 6 The illuminating opinion of Judge Charles E. Clark in Weinberg v. United States, 2 Cir., 126 F.2d 1004, 1006, demons......
-
Frank v. United States
...and held that it was not the duty of the defendant to retreat before forcibly resisting the assault. Brown v. U. S., 256 U. S. 335, 41 S. Ct. 501, 502, 65 L. Ed. 961, 18 A. L. R. 1276. Of this rule the court "Rationally the failure to retreat is a circumstance to be considered with all the ......
-
Second Amendment Federalism.
...in a conflict between them, he happen to kill, such killing is justifiable." (quoting a contemporaneous criminal law treatise)). (158.) 256 U.S. 335 (159.) Id. at 341-42. (160.) Id. at 342. (161.) Id. (162.) Id. at 341-42. (163.) Id. at 343-44. (164.) Id. at 343. (165.) See id. at 343-44. (......
-
Judicial Non-delegation, the Inherent-powers Corollary, and Federal Common Law
...712-24 (2004).249. See Hart & Wechsler, supra note 21, at 653, 654 & n.2, 661.250. See infra Part III.E. 251. See Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921).252. See United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 347-49 (1971); Kahan, supra note 145, at 357-63; Zachary Price, The Rule of Lenity as a......
-
Just say no excuse: the rise and fall of the intoxication defense.
...what degree of force is warranted. "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921). If the law deters those who otherwise would have acted reasonably in self-defense, the result could be serious harm or even dea......
-
Natural Law and Self-Defense
...equally ends with the necessity.”). 203 GROTIUS, supra note 780, at 77. 204 Webster Letter, supra note 106. 205 Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921). 206 Id. 207 See, e.g. , United States v. Calley, 46 C.M.R. 1131, 1176 (C.M.R. 1973). 208 See id. ; United States v. Maxie, 25 C.M......