Lamar v. State

• Decision Date: 14 February 1887
• Citation: 1 So. 354,64 Miss. 428
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERT LAMAR v. THE STATE

1 So. 354

64 Miss. 428

ROBERT LAMAR v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 14, 1887

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of La Fayette County, HON. W. S FEATHERSTON, Judge.

Bob Lamar was indicted for the murder of one Wm. Harmon. It appears that on the day of the killing, Lamar, Dock Bishop and others were in the little town of Dallas, drinking and carousing. They became riotous, and Lamar shot one Ab. Ceasly. Thereupon Lamar and the Bishops started down a public road, apparently to leave the town. After they had gone several hundred yards they turned and seemed to be coming back. William Harmon, postmaster at Dallas, his brother, a merchant, and several others, thereupon went down the road to meet Lamar and the Bishops, and when they had met, William Harmon asked Lamar to leave and not to come back to the town and said that he, Lamar, "had shot one man and that they did not want any more trouble."

A quarrel and fight ensued between the two parties and William Harmon was killed. The evidence as to what occurred during this meeting is somewhat conflicting.

On the trial the court instructed the jury for the defendant as follows:

"7. The court instructs the jury that even should they believe from the evidence that accused killed the deceased, yet if deceased was killed when accused honestly and reasonably believed, from the behavior of deceased, that deceased was then and there seeking to take the life of accused, or to do him some great bodily harm, and that the only way of avoiding such injury at the hands of the deceased was to slay, then accused had a right to defend himself, even to the infliction of death, and the jury must acquit.

"And this is true, although the jury should further believe from the evidence that accused was in no actual danger of such injury, if he was in apparent danger of it.

"And further, accused is entitled to be acquitted if the jury have left on their minds by the evidence a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused honestly and reasonably believed as above set forth, under the circumstances above set forth."

The court refused to give the eighth instruction asked by the defendant, which was as follows:

"8. The court instructs the jury that even although they may believe from the evidence that accused had been drunk disorderly, and violent in Dallas just before the fatal affray, and that deceased and others considered that it would be a disgrace to the town to permit him to remain there and 'cut up' as he had been doing, and went to him for the purpose of inducing him to leave the town; yet if they further...