State v. Bohanan
| Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
| Citation | 76 Mo. 562 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. BOHANAN, Appellant.<sup>a1</sup> |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court.--HON. C. C. BLAND, Judge.
REVERSED.
The following instructions were given for the State:
1. The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence that defendant, George Bohanan, at and in the county of Phelps, Missouri, and at any time before the finding of this indictment, feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, shot and killed William Light, you will find him, said George Bohanan, guilty of murder in the first degree.
2. The court instructs the jury that the term malice, as used in the indictment, and in these instructions, does not as in its popular sense mean hatred or ill-will, but it means a wrongful act intentionally done, without just cause or excuse. The term premeditation means thought of beforehand any length of time however short, as where the defendant had time to think, and did think of what he was about to do and then acted. The term deliberation means in a cool state of the blood, as opposed to a heated state. If the defendant, in a cool state of the blood, formed a design to kill Light any length of time, however short, before the killing was done, then such killing was deliberately done.
3. The deliberation and premeditation necessary to constitute murder in the first degree need not be proved by direct or positive evidence, may be deduced from the facts and circumstances attending the killing.
4. If Bohanan killed Light with a pistol or revolver by shooting him, the law presumes it is murder, in the absence of proof to the contrary, and it devolves upon the defendant to show from the evidence that he was guilty of a less crime or acted in self-defense.
5. Although the jury may believe from the evidence Light struck the defendant the first blow with his fist, yet if they further find from the evidence that the defendant intentionally brought on the difficulty and provoked Light to make the first assault with the intention of killing him (Light), the jury should find defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.
6. If the jury believe from the evidence that the killing of Light by defendant was done deliberately, premeditatedly and in malice, it is no excuse that defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of liquor at the time. The killing in such case is still murder in the first degree, for it is a settled principle of law that drunkenness is no excuse for crime.
7. The court instructs the jury that the fact of the defendant being upon trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warren
...necessary elements of that crime. State v. Speyer, 207 Mo. 540; State v. Davis, 12 S.W. (2d) 427; State v. McNamara, 212 Mo. 150; State v. Bohanan, 76 Mo. 562; State v. Slusher, 301 Mo. 285, 256 S.W. 819; State v. Gabriel, 301 Mo. 365, 256 S.W. 767; State v. Jones, 309 Mo. 50, 273 S.W. 731;......
-
State v. Warren
...the necessary elements of that crime. State v. Speyer, 207 Mo. 540; State v. Davis, 12 S.W.2d 427; State v. McNamara, 212 Mo. 150; State v. Bohanan, 76 Mo. 562; State Slusher, 301 Mo. 285, 256 S.W. 819; State v. Gabriel, 301 Mo. 365, 256 S.W. 767; State v. Jones, 309 Mo. 50, 273 S.W. 731; S......
-
State ex rel. Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Waltner
...... e., competent evidence heard under circumstances affording. the adverse party, for the protection of his rights, those. safeguards the law guarantees, including an opportunity for. cross-examining the witness heard as well as the introduction. of evidence in his own behalf. State v. Bohanan . (1882), 76 Mo. 562, 564, ruled: "Under the provisions of. Section 1859, R. S. 1879, the truth of the allegations of a. petition for a change of venue must be 'proved to the. satisfaction of the court by legal and competent. evidence.' Affidavits, therefore, do not meet this. requirement of ......
-
State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Waltner, 37566.
...an opportunity for cross-examining the witness heard as well as the introduction of evidence in his own behalf. State v. Bohanan (1882), 76 Mo. 562, 564, ruled: "Under the provisions of Section 1859, R.S. 1879, the truth of the allegations of a petition for a change of venue must be `proved......