Gransden v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | A-2156. |
| Citation | 158 P. 157,12 Okla.Crim. 417,1916 OK CR 58 |
| Parties | GRANSDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
On Rehearing, June 17, 1916.
Syllabus by the Court.
In a prosecution for murder, self-serving declarations of the defendant made about 10 minutes after the homicide and in reference to it, held properly excluded as no part of the res gestæ.
Refusal to give instructions substantially covered by the instructions given is not error.
When the instructions taken and considered together embrace the law of the case, though one of them may be erroneous, still for such error a judgment of conviction will not be reversed unless it shall appear from the whole record that it was prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant.
An instruction defining "reasonable doubt" as "a doubt for which there exists a reason in the minds of the jurors, founded upon the facts and circumstances in proof in the case, and is a state of mind of which an ordinarily intelligent man could readily give an explanation, consistent with the facts disclosed by the evidence and the law as given to the jury by the court," while improper, was not of sufficient consequence in this case to constitute reversible error.
A person assaulted is justified in using so much force as is necessary to his defense; and to repel a simple assault the person assaulted is not authorized to attack his assailant with a deadly weapon, and he is not justified in doing acts calculated to destroy the life of his assailant, unless the assault is of such a character as to excite his fears, as a reasonable man, of danger to life or great bodily harm, and if his assailant retreats in good faith, and he pursues and kills him with a deadly weapon, the killing cannot be justified on the ground of self-defense.
Evidence in a homicide case considered, and held sufficient to sustain a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree.
Where the unimpeachable physical facts squarely contradict the words of the defendant upon the witness stand, and show the theory of his testimony to be absurd, courts are not required to ignore such physical facts and give instructions not in harmony with them, but absolutely subversive of the theory they mutely and unalterably declare.
The court by its instructions is not required to invite a doubt where nothing can be more unreasonable than to suppose that one can exist.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
The expression "reasonable doubt" is its own best definition, and a "doubt" of the guilt of a defendant, honestly entertained, is a reasonable doubt.
Appeal from District Court, Greer County; G. A. Brown, Judge.
W. H Gransden was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
Where the assailant retreats in good faith and the assaulted person pursues and kills him with a deadly weapon, the killing cannot be justified as in self-defense.
The information charged the defendant with having, on the 2d day of May, 1913, in Greer county, killed and murdered one J. K. Lytle, by shooting him with a pistol. Upon the trial of the case the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and was sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for the term of 10 years. The evidence shows: That the defendant owned and kept an automobile garage at Granite in Greer county. That the deceased lived on a farm near Brinkman, some 7 or 8 miles northwest of Granite, and owned two automobiles, one a large red car, and the other a small roadster. On the Monday morning prior to his death the deceased had brought the large car to the defendant's garage for repairs; the cam shaft being broken, which necessitated the sending of the shaft out of town for the proper welding. It was sent out on Monday, and was received back on Thursday at about noon. On Friday morning the deceased and his son Roy came to Granite in the roadster and spent the day, until about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, assisting in the repair work on the large car; the deceased being anxious to have it ready for use on the following day. At that time the deceased and his son Roy returned to the farm in the roadster. After supper the deceased and his two sons motored back to Granite in order to get the large car, arriving there about 7 o'clock. McClannahan was still working on the repairs, and continued to do so until after 9 o'clock, receiving assistance from the deceased, his two sons, and the defendant.
No unpleasantness had been manifested during the day between the deceased and the defendant, but that evening a difficulty arose. The defendant wanted to take the magneto of the car under repair apart; the deceased insisting that he should not do so, as the instructions he said from the manufacturers forbid this as a condition precedent of their guaranty of proper service. About half past 9 o'clock it was discovered that McClannahan had for the second time placed the cam shaft wrong in the machine, requiring it to be again taken from the machine for proper revisement and requiring considerable time. The defendant ordered that work cease for the night, and that the garage be closed. To this the deceased objected, insisting that the repairs must be finished that night, saying that the machine had already been detained too long. This brought on the altercation which resulted in the tragedy. Aside from the defendant and the deceased, the only eyewitnesses to the tragedy were Roy Lytle, age 18 years, Barney Lytle, age 16 years, sons of the deceased, and John McClannahan and James F. Brown, employés of the defendant, who worked in his garage. The testimony of these 4 eyewitnesses as to the circumstances attending the shooting is substantially the same, allowing for difference in their relative positions and their natural feeling and relations towards the deceased and the defendant.
Roy Lytle testified: That the first trouble occurred that evening over the magneto, about 10 minutes before the shooting, and the defendant left the garage, saying that he was going to supper. When he returned he said he was going to close the garage, and his father said, "It will cost you $5 a day for every day" his car was in there. The defendant said, "You can just charge; I am going to close up." That his father struck the defendant on the right cheek with his left hand, and the defendant stepped back and drew a pistol; his father, walking toward the defendant, told him to shoot; the defendant presented the pistol and pulled the trigger; it snapped; his father, saying, "Don't shoot!" turned and ran out on the sidewalk and turned north. The defendant followed him out and shot him in the back; his father fell and said, "Don't shoot me any more, John; that is enough; get a doctor quick." That those were his last words. That he stooped to pick up his father, and the defendant said, "If you touch him, I will shoot a hole through you." That his father was in his shirt sleeves, and was unarmed, and did not have a pistol about his person. That their little car stood in the street south from the door of the garage.
The testimony of Barney Lytle was substantially the same as that of his brother Roy.
John McClannahan testified that he worked for the defendant; that he went home that evening about 7 o'clock, to tell his wife that he would be working late at the shop that night; that they were all working on the car, and the defendant took witness' car and left, saying he was going to supper; that when he came back he ran the car into the garage; the deceased at the time was talking to Jimmie Brown; that there had been no trouble up to that time; that shortly after he heard the deceased call the defendant a blue-bellied Yankee, and he heard a lick, and he got up from the car where he was working, and saw the defendant pull a gun, and the deceased ran out on the street, pursued by the defendant; that he heard a shot, he went out, and the deceased was lying on the sidewalk, 6 or 7 feet from the doorway. On cross-examination he was asked if he heard the deceased use the term "son of a bitch" that evening; he said he did not.
Abe Hackett testified that he heard the shot and ran to the garage, reaching there about a minute later; the deceased was lying on the sidewalk, and the defendant said, "That is the notorious Jeff Lytle, that has been running the shops up here, and I beat him to it;" that the deceased was then living, but died in a few minutes.
G. B. Patterson testified that he was standing on the sidewalk on Main street near the garage, and saw the deceased come out of the building; that he was stooping forward and came out pretty fast; that he was about 10 feet from him, and a man named Ryan told him to leave, and as he was leaving he heard a shot, and looked and saw the deceased fall forward on his face; that he was then about 15 feet from the deceased.
Dr. Nunnery testified that he was called, and reached the deceased about the time he died; that his death was caused by a gunshot wound; that the bullet entered the back between the two shoulder blades, and, passing upward, lodged in the neck, under the left ear.
For the defendant:
Joe Flynn testified that he was in the garage that evening about 8 o'clock, fixing and cleaning up his car; that he heard the deceased say, "Your hide will not hold shot;" that he walked up and said to them, "Don't have no trouble in here;" that the deceased picked up the magneto and said to witness, "It came in there running all right, and if they would let it alone it would run all right when they went out;" that Mr. Janeway instructed him not to "let anybody monkey with the magneto, only to send it back to the factory." He was then asked to state some of the things that the deceased said, and answered that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial