Medlock v. State
| Decision Date | 25 May 1897 |
| Citation | 114 Ala. 6,22 So. 112 |
| Parties | MEDLOCK v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; Samuel E. Greene Judge.
John Medlock was indicted and tried for the murder of one Adolphos Toler, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 25 years and appeals. Affirmed.
The only ruling of the trial court presented on the present appeal was the refusal to give the charge requested by the defendant. The facts necessary to an understanding of the charge are sufficiently stated in the opinion. This charge to the refusal to give which the defendant duly excepted, was as follows: "A man's house is his castle, and he has a right to defend it or himself, when in his house, from an attack made or threatened by overt acts, and need not retreat, but may stand his ground and defend himself from real or apparent danger, and, if necessary to his safety, may slay his assailant."
Robert C. Redus, for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The evidence for the state tended to show that deceased came to defendant's house at night, and knocked on the outer door of a room thereof which was rented and occupied at the time by Nora Mack, who does not appear to have sustained other relation to the defendant than a tenant; that Nora Mack was not in at the time; the defendant asked, "Who is that?" and deceased answered, "Toler;" and that thereupon defendant went to the door, opened it, and shot Toler, killing him. Defendant testified that when he went to the door he ordered deceased away, saying, "I thought I told you to stay away," to which Toler replied, "Yes; but you have insulted me, and I am going to kill you;" and that then Toler put his hand on his pistol, and he (defendant) shot him. It was clearly open to the jury to find on this evidence that the deceased had a right to knock on the door of, and gain admission to, the room of Nora Mack, without offense to, or hindrance on the part of, defendant. So finding, it was with them further to conclude that the defendant acted in his own wrong in accosting Toler and ordering him away, and hence was at such fault in bringing on Toler's alleged attempt to shoot him as took away his right, otherwise resulting from the fact that he was in his own house, to shoot without effort to retreat. The charge requested by the defendant, in omitting the hypothesis of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Wilson v. State
-
Sandford v. State
...while being assailed, shot and killed the deceased, would be more like that which would have been produced by the charge in Medlock's Case, 114 Ala. 6, 22 So. 112, which was properly refused because not including freedom from fault in the hypothesis. Although the defendant was the only eyew......
-
Daniel v. State
... ... where both parties had a right to be. McGhee v ... State, 178 Ala. 4, 59 So. 573. These charges also ignore ... the doctrine of freedom from fault. Andrews v ... State, 159 Ala. 29, 48 So. 858; Sanford v ... State, 2 Ala.App. 81, 57 So. 134; Medlock v ... State, 114 Ala. 6, 22 So. 112; Thomas v. State, ... 69 So. 315 ... There ... is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed ... ...
-
Bryant v. State
... ... curtilage thereof, and it is immaterial whether the assailant ... is an intruder or another lawful occupant of the premises, ... but a defendant not so circumstanced is without the benefit ... of the doctrine. Maxwell v. State, 129 Ala. 48, 57, ... 29 So. 981; Medlock v. State, 114 Ala. 6, 22 So ... 112; Andrews v. State, 159 Ala. 14, 29, 48 So. 858; ... Baugh v. State, 215 Ala. 619, 112 So. 157; Wood ... v. State, 17 Ala.App. 654(7), 88 So. 28; Sandford v ... State, 2 Ala.App. 81, 57 So. 134(9); Hicks v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 335(5), 108 So. 612, ... ...