Magness v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1899 |
| Parties | MAGNESS v. STATE. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
While I concur in the judgment of reversal, and in what is said in the opinion of Mr. Justice BATTLE concerning the law of self-defense, I do not fully agree with his criticism of the instructions given by the trial judge. I think the instructions referred to are not only defective in form, but that it is hardly correct to say, as these instructions say, that the circumstances under which defendant acted must have been such as "to induce" a reasonable person to believe that the danger was so urgent and pressing that the killing was necessary to save his own life or prevent great bodily harm. It is sufficient if the circumstances were "calculated to induce" such belief in a reasonable person, or, to put it in different and perhaps clearer language, sufficient if the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he was in imminent danger, if he honestly entertained and acted upon such belief. But the opinion goes further, and condemns the reference to a "reasonable person" contained in these instructions. The argument is that they thus set up a mythical or ideal reasonable person as a criterion by which to judge the defendant, and are therefore erroneous. But I do not think the instructions are erroneous in this respect; for on that point they substantially follow the law as stated by this court in the case of Palmore v. State, 29 Ark. 248, — a case which has been often approved in later decisions. In that case the court, quoting the statute, said: "To excuse homicide, it must appear that the danger is not only impending, but so pressing and urgent as to render the killing necessary; and the circumstances must show that there was sufficient to arouse the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under their influence, and not in a spirit of revenge." Palmore v. State, 29 Ark. 266; Levells v. State, 32 Ark. 585; Fitzpatrick v. State, 37 Ark. 257; Sand. & H. Dig. §§ 1675, 1676. The law presumes that men are sane, and have ordinary reason, until the contrary is shown; and, as nothing appears to the contrary here, the judge could assume that the defendant was a sane man, possessed of ordinary reason, and accountable as such. This being so, it seems to me that the instructions given in this case, and the law as stated in Palmore v. State, amount to the same thing as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Kartman
...effect upon their testimony. Jacek v. Bacote, 135 Conn. 702, 68 A.2d 144, 146 (1949); Magness v. State, 67 Ark. 594, 50 S.W. 554, 59 S.W. 529 (1899); see also People v. Christie, 2 Abb.Pr. 256, 259, 2 Park.Cr.R. 579, 583 (N.Y.S.Ct. 1st D.1855); United States v. Lee Huen, 118 F. 442, 463 (N.......
-
Ex parte State
...properly be considered. 5 Jones, Ev. §§ 828, 901; McLaughlin v. Mencke, 80 Md. 83. 30 A. 603; Magness v. State, 67 Ark. 598, 50 S.W. 554, 59 S.W. 529; 2 Ency. of Ev. See, also, Phillips v. State, 161 Ala. 60, 49 So. 794; Gosdin v. Williams et al., 151 Ala. 592, 44 So. 611; Kelly v. State, 2......
-
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Murphy
...222; McFalls v. State, 66 Ark. 16, 48 S. W. 492; Henshaw v. State, 67 Ark. 366, 55 S. W. 157; Magness v. State, 67 Ark. 594, 50 S. W. 554, 59 S. W. 529; Elder v. State, 69 Ark. 648, 65 S. W. 938, 86 Am. St. Rep. 220; Ry. v. Smith, 70 Ark. 179, 67 S. W. 865; German Ins. Co. v. Harper, 70 Ark......
-
Pendergrass v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...approved by this court in Smith v. State, 59 Ark. 132, 137, 26 S.W. 712, 43 Am.St.Rep. 20, and Magness v. State, 67 Ark. 594, 50 S.W. 554, 59 S.W. 529. The instructions given at the instance of the state followed the rule approved by this court in other cases. Palmore v. State, 29 Ark. 248;......