Commonwealth v. Mann
| Decision Date | 24 October 1874 |
| Citation | 116 Mass. 58 |
| Parties | Commonwealth v. August Mann |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Worcester. Indictment for assault and shooting Timothy Callaghan with a pistol. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Lord, J there was evidence tending to show that the shooting took place in the defendant's saloon; that a quarrel occurred between Callaghan and the defendant, and that Callaghan threw one or more beer mugs at the defendant, who then fired two shots from a revolver, and that the second shot hit Callaghan in the neck.
It appeared that Callaghan threw the mugs as he was retreating towards the door, and when the second shot was fired he was behind a screen that stood near the door, and about thirty feet from where the defendant stood; and it further appeared that one of the shots entered the sheathing over the door. The defendant testified that he did not intend to hit Callaghan, but meant to frighten him; that he was in fear of his life, and fired to frighten him and prevent him from further violence. The government offered evidence tending to show that the defendant intended to hit Callaghan.
The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury as follows: 1. If it was under the circumstances reasonably necessary for the defendant to fire the pistol at Callaghan he would not be guilty of an assault. 2. If it was not reasonably necessary for the defendant to shoot Callaghan, it might be reasonably necessary to fire the pistol in such a manner as to deter him by fright from further violence upon the defendant, and if the defendant intended only to do the latter, he might not be guilty. 3. If the defendant did not intend to aim the pistol at Callaghan, nor to hit him when he fired, he would not be guilty of an assault, even though the shot took effect on Callaghan, unless the defendant fired the pistol recklessly. 4. If the defendant intended merely to fire the pistol in such a direction as to frighten Callaghan and intended not to hit him, and accidentally, against the defendant's intention, the shot took effect, he would not be guilty of an assault, unless he fired recklessly.
The presiding judge did not read these requests to the jury, but said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Spear
...this to the 'defense' of provocation, it was not error to submit the question of voluntary manslaughter to the jury. 6 Commonwealth v. Mann, 116 Mass. 58, 61 (1874). See Commonwealth v. Young, 326 Mass. 597, 601, 96 N.E.2d 133 (1950); Commonwealth v. Baker, 346 Mass. 107, 119, 190 N.E.2d 55......
-
Com. v. Barber
...v. Albert, 391 Mass. 853, 861 (1984), the question whether the defendant's apprehension and belief were reasonable. See Commonwealth v. Mann, 116 Mass. 58 (1874). Compare Monize v. Begaso, 190 Mass. 87, 76 N.E. 460 (1906). The facts that the defendant did not know with certainty whether the......
-
State v. Lehman
...although intending not to hit him, is an assault and battery if the other be hit. State v. Triplett, 52 Kan. 678, 35 Pac. 815;Commonwealth v. Mann, 116 Mass. 58;Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 157 Mass. 551, 32 N. E. 862;Malone v. State, 77 Miss. 812,26 South. 968;Smith v. Commonwealth, 100 Pa. 32......
-
State v. Lehman
... ... assault and battery if the other be hit. State v ... Triplett, 52 Kan. 678, 35 P. 815; Commonwealth v ... Mann, 116 Mass. 58, Commonwealth v. Hawkins, ... 157 Mass. 551, 32 N.E. 862; Malone v. State, 77 ... Miss. 812, 26 So. 968; Smith v. Com ... ...