Matthews v. State

• Decision Date: 16 November 1914
• Docket Number: 17622
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. STATE

66 So. 325

108 Miss. 72

MATTHEWS v. STATE

No. 17622

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 16, 1914

APPEAL from the circuit court of Lauderdale county. HON. J. L BUCKLEY, Judge.

George Matthews was convicted of murder and appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

Scott &amp Christian, for appellant.

Geo Ethridge, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

Appellant was indicted and convicted of the crime of murder. According to the contention of the state, the deceased was assassinated; according to that of appellant, he (appellant) killed the deceased in self-defense.

A ground upon which a reversal is sought is the granting and refusal of instructions. Section 1230 of the Code provides that:

"The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable . . . when committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished."

For the state the court charged the jury that:

"One has the legal right to take human life, whenever one becomes so situated that he believes, and has good reason to believe, that he is in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of an assailant."

The fourth instruction for the defendant charged the jury that one of the questions it was called on to decide was:

"Were the actions and conduct of the deceased, at and just prior to the moment he was shot, viewed in the light of all the facts in the case, as shown in the evidence, such as to create, and is there a probability, based on the evidence, that they did crate, in the mind of the defendant, a reasonable belief that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of Lon Smith, when he shot him, and did he shoot him because thereof?"

This instruction was modified by the court, by striking out the words "reasonable belief that he was in danger," and inserting in lieu thereof the words "good grounds to believe, and he did so believe, that he was in immediate danger." This instruction further charged the jury that:

"The defendant had the right to act upon appearances that were in their nature threatening, and were sufficient to raise in his mind, and did raise in his mind, reasonable apprehension that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of Lon Smith."

The court struck out the words "reasonable apprehension," and inserted in lieu thereof the words "a good ground to believe."

A similar modification was made by the court to appellant's fifth instruction.

Appellant's ninth instruction charged the jury that:

"Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being by the party charged, when committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be, at the time, reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished."

This instruction was modified by striking out the words "reasonable ground," and substituting in lieu thereof the words "good grounds honestly entertained."

His tenth instruction charged the jury that:

"The defendant had the right to do, and is justifiable under the law in having done, at the time of the homicide, whatever he had reasonable grounds to believe, and that he did believe therefrom, was necessary to protect his life or limb from death or great bodily harm at the hands of the deceased, whether there was any real or actual danger or not."

This instruction was modified by the court, so as to read as follows:

"That the defendant had the right to do, and is justifiable under the law in having done, at the time of the homicide, whatever he had good grounds to believe, and he did in good faith believe therefrom, was necessary to protect his life or limb from immediate death or great bodily harm at the hands of the deceased, whether there was any real or actual danger or not."

His eleventh instruction charged the jury that:

"He also had the right to act upon appearances that were in their nature sufficient to raise in his minds a reasonable ground to apprehend that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of the deceased, regardless of whether there was any real or actual danger or not."

This instruction was modified by leaving out the words "reasonable" and inserting the word "good."

None of defendant's instructions, so modified, were read to the jury.

The objection urged to the instruction for the state and to the modifications made in appellant's instructions is that by charging the jury in the state's instruction that appellant must have had "good reason" to believe etc., and in the modifications to appellant's instructions that he must have had "good ground" to believe, etc., the court imposed...