Johns v. State

• Decision Date: 01 February 1913
• Citation: 129 P. 451,8 Okla.Crim. 585,1913 OK CR 27
• Parties: JOHNS v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

129 P. 451

8 Okla.Crim. 585, 1913 OK CR 27

JOHNS v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

February 1, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

Instructions to juries should be considered in the light of the testimony of the case in which they are given, and, where it appears from an inspection of the entire record that the guilt of the accused is conclusively established, errors in the instructions given, which could not have injured the appellant, will not be ground for reversal.

If a person armed with a deadly weapon voluntarily and unnecessarily enters into a mutual combat for the purpose of getting a pretext to slay his adversary, or if such person has reason to believe that such combat will or may result in death or serious bodily injury to one or the other of the persons engaged therein, then the right of self-defense will not arise in favor of such person, no matter to what extremity he may be reduced during such combat.

In their briefs, counsel should cite the volume and page of the Oklahoma reports of all decisions of this state upon which they rely.

Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; John Caruthers, Judge.

Dellia Johns was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

Walker & Fancher, of Holdenville, for appellant.

Chas West, Atty. Gen., for the State.

FURMAN J.

So far as the material questions in this case are concerned, there is no substantial conflict in the testimony. Appellant was the wife of deceased. By a prior marriage she had become the mother of five children, three girls and two boys. Without going into details, it is sufficient to say that the testimony discloses a wretched state of feeling existing between appellant and the deceased some time prior to the homicide. The eldest daughter of appellant had left home. Appellant brought her back. It appears that the deceased had charged this girl with a want of chastity. Appellant stated to several witnesses the day before the homicide that deceased had said to her that, if she did not whip the girl he would whip her, and appellant further stated that she then informed the deceased that if he did this would be the last whipping he would ever give her; that she (appellant) would kill him. It appears from the testimony that on the morning of the homicide a violent quarrel arose between appellant and deceased in which a great deal of improper language was used by both parties. It also appears that deceased was not armed during this controversy, but that appellant had a gun in her hands, and that during this controversy appellant shot...