State v. Calhoun.
Decision Date | 26 December 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 1991.,1991. |
Citation | 170 P. 750,23 N.M. 681 |
Parties | STATEv.CALHOUN. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Applications for continuance may be amended but once, with the consent of the court. The action of the court in refusing to permit the application to be amended will be set aside for abuse of discretion only.
The granting of a motion for continuance is within the exercise of sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be reviewed in the absence of a gross abuse thereof.
A requested instruction incorrectly stating the law is properly refused.
Where an illegal arrest is made by an officer, the person arrested may resist the same, or the continuation of custody thereunder, but not to the extent of excessive violence.
Appeal from District Court, Colfax County; Leib, Judge.
Stonewall Jackson Calhoun was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Requested instruction on self-defense omitting requirement that facts must be such as to justify reasonably prudent man in believing that he may kill to protect his life or prevent great bodily harm was erroneous, and properly refused.
J. Leahy, of Raton, for appellant.
H. S. Bowman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, Stonewall Jackson Calhoun, was charged by indictment in the district court for Colfax county with the commission of the crime of murder. He was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and has perfected this appeal.
As no statement of facts is contained in the brief of appellant, the following statement, appearing in the brief of the state, will be considered as the facts of the case:
[1] 1. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for continuance. The facts are that appellant filed an application for continuance on May 8, 1916. This motion was denied, evidently on the ground that no proper showing of diligence on the part of appellant had been made to entitle him to the continuance. He then filed an amended motion in which he attempted to show good cause for failure to have his witnesses present. He asked the court to rule on the motion as thus amended, but this the court declined to do. Appellant insists that the action of the court in this respect was tantamount to a denial of the motion. He also insists that he had the right, as a matter of course, to once amend his motion or application for continuance. Section 4463, Code 1915, provides:
“The application for continuance shall be amended but once, except to supply a clerical error, by permission. ***”
The statute is too plain to require construction. It clearly provides in effect that the application or motion may be once amended with the consent of the court. The consent of the court is a condition precedent to the right to amend. The refusal of the court to pass upon the motion as amended was equivalent to a refusal to permit the amendment. The facts are insufficient to justify holding that the court thereby abused its discretion.
[2] 2. Appellant also contends that the court was in error in denying his first motion for a continuance. It was apparently denied on the ground that it failed to show the exercise of the proper degree of diligence in attempting to obtain the attendance of a certain witness. Appellant filed a motion for a continuance on December 10, 1915. This motion was granted. No diligence whatever is shown in his motion of May 8, 1916, excepting the fact that he had two subpoenas issued to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Phillips
... ... Calhoun, 23 N.M. 681, 686, 170 P. 750, 751 (1917). However, where the arrest was lawful, "no resistance whatever on the part of the arrested person was permissible." Id. at 687, 170 P. at 751. Whether an arrest was lawful depended upon the officer-victim's actual authority to arrest. See, e.g., State ... ...
-
State v. Horton
... ... 319, 161 P. 1108, and has been cited with approval in the following cases: State v. Beal, 1951, 55 N.M. 382, 234 P.2d 331; State v. Moore, 1938, 42 N.M. 135, 76 P.2d 19; State v. Nevares, 1932, 36 N.M. 41, 7 P.2d 933; State v. Roybal, 1928, 33 N.M. 187, 262 P. 929; State v. Calhoun, 1917, 23 N.M. 681, 170 P. 750; State v. Dickens, 1917, 23 N.M. 26, 165 P. 850 ... The instruction given by the court is contradictory within itself and with the [57 NM 261] other self-defense instructions. Certainly the italicized sentence is erroneous in telling the jury the ... ...
-
State v. Harrison
... ... 67, 313 P.2d 337 (1957). Nevertheless, decisions of the New Mexico Supreme Court dealing with the elements of self-defense have consistently referred to elements which 'must' exist if self-defense is to be submitted to the jury. State v. Parks, 25 N.M. 395, 183 P. 433 (1919); State v. Calhoun, 23 N.M. 681, 170 P. 750 (1917); State v. Chesher, 22 N.M. 319, 161 P. 1108 (1916). The instruction did no more than [81 N.M. 631] ... inform the jury of the necessary elements. The instruction makes no reference to a burden of proof in regard to self-defense ... The jury was ... ...
-
Durham v. State
... ... idea that such belief might, by the jury, be found from the ... evidence of threats alone, yet that construction might be ... gathered therefrom, and hence the instruction was misleading ... and properly refused. (State v. Calhoun, 23 N.M ... 681, 170 P. 750.) ... The law ... of self defense is founded upon necessity. To justify a ... homicide, it must appear that the slayer was in great peril ... of death or serious bodily harm, or had reasonable ground for ... believing and did believe, that he was in such ... ...