State v. Evans
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Sherwood |
| Citation | 31 S.W. 34,128 Mo. 406 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1895 |
| Parties | STATE v. EVANS. |
v.
EVANS.
ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO KILL — INDICTMENT — SELF-DEFENSE.
1. An indictment charging that defendant "did then and there * * * strike, cut, stab, and thrust, with intent then and there him, the said S., to kill and murder," etc., is fatally defective as failing to state who it was that was cut, struck, or stabbed.
2. Where one attacks another, intending only an ordinary battery, the fact that such attack was made voluntarily, and of his own free will, does not deprive assailant of his right of self-defense.
Appeal from circuit court, Dunklin county; John G. Wear, Judge.
Solomon D. Evans was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and appeals. Reversed.
Instruction No. 2 was as follows: "No. 2. The right to defend one's self against danger not of his own seeking is a right which the law not only concedes, but guaranties, to all men. The defendant may, therefore, have struck the witness Lee Stewart with a knife, and still be innocent of any offense against the law. If, at the time he struck the said Stewart with a knife, he had reasonable cause to apprehend on the part of said Stewart a design to do him some great personal injury, and there was reasonable cause for him to apprehend immediate danger of such design being accomplished, and to avert such apprehended danger he struck said Lee Stewart, and at the time he did so he had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, it necessary for him to use his knife to protect himself from such apprehended danger, then, and in that case, such striking was not felonious, but was justifiable, and you ought to acquit him on the ground of necessary self-defense. It is not necessary to this defense that the danger should have been actual or real, or that the danger should have been impending, and immediately about to fall. All that is necessary is that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, these facts. But before you acquit on the ground of self-defense, you ought to believe that defendant's cause of apprehension was reasonable. Whether the facts constituting such reasonable cause have been established by the evidence you are to determine, and, unless the facts constituting such reasonable cause have been established by the evidence in this cause, you cannot acquit in such case on the ground of self-defense, even though
you may believe that the defendant really...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jump
...`That in an indictment nothing material shall be taken by intendment or implication.' 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, § 60." In State v. Evans, 128 Mo. 406, 412, 31 S. W. 34, 35, in speaking of an indictment less faulty than this one, the judge said: "As it is, the indictment is fatally defe......
-
Waggoner-Gates Milling Co. v. Ziegler-Zaiss Commission Co.
...of the directors or stockholders? Must, as a matter of law, such creditors be content to share equally with the other creditors of the 31 S.W. 34 corporation, because, forsooth, they have also the guaranty of some of the directors or stockholders, whose guaranty may or may not be worth anyt......
-
State v. Barnes, No. 21894.
...167 Mo. 429, 67 S. W. 292; State v. Hagan, 164 Mo. 654, 65 S. W. 249; State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92, 53 S. W. 427; State v. Evans, 128 Mo. 406, 31 S. W. 34; State v. Austin, 113 Mo. loc. cit. 543, 21 S. W. 31; State v. Buster, 90 Mo. loc. cit. 518, 2 S. W. 834; State v. Gabriel, 88 Mo. loc......
-
State v. Burton, No. 29557.
...the defendant of the offense of which he stands charged. Sec. 22, Art. II, Constitution of Missouri; Sec. 3908, R.S. 1919; State v. Evans, 128 Mo. 406; State v. Zinger, 302 Mo. 650. The sufficiency of an information may be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Henschel, 250 Mo. 263.......
-
State v. Jump
...`That in an indictment nothing material shall be taken by intendment or implication.' 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 25, § 60." In State v. Evans, 128 Mo. 406, 412, 31 S. W. 34, 35, in speaking of an indictment less faulty than this one, the judge said: "As it is, the indictment is fatally defe......
-
Waggoner-Gates Milling Co. v. Ziegler-Zaiss Commission Co.
...of the directors or stockholders? Must, as a matter of law, such creditors be content to share equally with the other creditors of the 31 S.W. 34 corporation, because, forsooth, they have also the guaranty of some of the directors or stockholders, whose guaranty may or may not be worth anyt......
-
State v. Barnes, No. 21894.
...167 Mo. 429, 67 S. W. 292; State v. Hagan, 164 Mo. 654, 65 S. W. 249; State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92, 53 S. W. 427; State v. Evans, 128 Mo. 406, 31 S. W. 34; State v. Austin, 113 Mo. loc. cit. 543, 21 S. W. 31; State v. Buster, 90 Mo. loc. cit. 518, 2 S. W. 834; State v. Gabriel, 88 Mo. loc......
-
State v. Burton, No. 29557.
...the defendant of the offense of which he stands charged. Sec. 22, Art. II, Constitution of Missouri; Sec. 3908, R.S. 1919; State v. Evans, 128 Mo. 406; State v. Zinger, 302 Mo. 650. The sufficiency of an information may be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Henschel, 250 Mo. 263.......