State v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 02 December 1889
• Parties: STATE v. BROOKS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 S.W. 633

99 Mo. 137

STATE v. BROOKS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 2, 1889.

ACCUSED AS WITNESS — ASSAULT — SELF-DEFENSE.

1. Where the accused is a witness in his own behalf, it is not prejudicial error to charge that what he testified to against his interest is to be taken as true.

2. On the trial of an indictment for an assault with intent to kill, an instruction that if defendant was so assaulted as to give him reasonable cause to believe there was a design to do him great bodily injury, and struck his assailant, with a knife, to prevent such injury, he was justified, is rightly refused, as not limiting the right of self-defense to the use of such violence only as appeared necessary.

BLACK, J., dissenting.

Appeal from circuit court, Buchanan county; SILAS WOODSON, Judge.

Defendant was tried upon an indictment containing three counts, — the first two for assault with intent to kill, and the third for an assault with a knife, and a felonious maiming, wounding, etc., of the injured party. Defendant was convicted under the third count, and, after the usual motions, appealed. The instructions referred to in the opinion as offered by defendant and refused by the court are the following, viz.: "(1) The witness Wright had no right or authority to approach the defendant in a rude or insolent manner, nor did he have the right, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, to touch or lay his hands upon the defendant. Therefore, if the jury, believing from the evidence that the defendant was peaceably on the picnic grounds mentioned in the evidence, and said Wright approached the defendant, and caught hold of him, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, and threw or pushed the defendant from him, and struck the defendant one or more blows with his fist, and that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that there was a design on the part of said Wright to do him some great bodily harm or great personal injury, about then to be accomplished, and that the defendant struck said Wright, with a knife, to prevent such injury or bodily harm, then the defendant was justified in so doing, and the jury, in that case, should find the defendant not guilty. (2) If the jury believe from the evidence that the witness Wright assaulted or struck the defendant as stated in the other instructions, and the jury further believe that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that there was a design on the part of witness Wright to do the defendant some great bodily harm or great personal injury, about then to be accomplished, and the defendant struck said Wright to avoid such injury, then the jury should find the defendant not guilty, and it would make no difference in that case whether said defendant was in actual danger from said Wright or not, or whether such danger was then pending and about to fall on him or not." "(6) If the jury believe from the evidence that the witness Wright caught hold of and pushed the defendant, or that he struck the defendant one or more blows with his fist, and that the defendant had reasonable cause to apprehend a design on the part of said Wright to do him some great bodily harm or great personal injury, then about to be accomplished, and the defendant struck and cut said Wright to avoid and prevent such injury, then the defendant was justified, and the jury should find the defendant not guilty." The agreed statement of facts, signed by counsel, is as follows: "It is admitted by the defendant herein that the defendant struck and wounded one James F. Wright (the same party mentioned in the indictment) with a knife, in Buchanan county, Missouri, on the 1st day of August, 1885. It is also admitted by the prosecuting attorney of Buchanan county, Missouri, that at and before the time of the wounding said Wright and the defendant were engaged in a difficulty, and that, under the evidence advanced on the trial of this case, it was proper for the court to instruct the jury, on behalf of the defendant, as to the law of self-defense, as defined by 1 Rev. St. 1879, § 1235, p. 219; and that the defendant was a witness on his own behalf in the case. It is also agreed by and between the parties aforesaid that the points presented shall be determined by the supreme court on the above agreed facts, without the testimony being set out in the bill of exceptions; the only errors complained of and to be presented being the action of the court in giving and refusing instructions."

Haynes, Casteel & Parrish, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

BARCLAY, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

This cause is presented on an agreed statement of facts, in which counsel, with the commendable purpose of facilitating investigation, have...