State v. Garland
Decision Date | 16 May 1905 |
Citation | 50 S.E. 853,138 N.C. 675 |
Parties | STATE v. GARLAND. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, McDowell County; Neal, Judge.
Elisha Garland was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.
In a prosecution for homicide accused testified that he requested deceased to have the fire in the room attended to; that deceased answered in very insulting language; that accused said deceased would have to take that back, and advanced toward him 10 or 12 feet; that deceased made a motion as if to draw a pistol, whereupon accused shot him; and that accused saw no weapon of any kind about deceased. Held, that this testimony justified an instruction that accused was guilty of manslaughter at least.
Indictment for murder, tried before Neal, J., and a jury at August term 1904, of McDowell superior court. The evidence considered necessary to a proper understanding of the decision is as follows:
Alfred Williams, for the state, testified that:
As to dying declarations of deceased, James Calicutt testified
The prisoner, Elisha Garland, testified in his own behalf: On cross-examination prisoner testified:
The court, among other things, instructed the jury, after citing all the evidence, that if they believed the prisoner's evidence and that of his witnesses to be true, he would at least be guilty of manslaughter. To the foregoing charge the prisoner in apt time excepted, and assigned the same as error. This was the only exception as to the charge given. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and from the judgment thereon the prisoner appealed.
A. C. Avery and P.J. Sinclair, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
HOKE, J. (after stating the case).
It is the law of this state that where a man provokes a fight by unlawfully assaulting another, and in the progress of the fight kills his adversary, he will be guilty of manslaughter at least, though at the precise time of the homicide it was necessary for the original assailant to kill in order to save his own life. This is ordinarily true where a man unlawfully and willingly enters into a mutual combat with another and kills his adversary. In either case, in order to excuse the killing on the plea of self-defense, it is necessary for the accused to show that he "quitted the combat before the mortal wound was given, and retreated or fled as far as he could with safety, and then, urged by mere necessity, killed his adversary for the preservation of his own life." Foster's Crown Law, p. 276. The same author says on page 277: To the same effect is Lord Hale, who lays it down: "That if A. assaults B. first, and upon that assault B. reassaults A., and that so fiercely that A. cannot retreat to the wall or other non ultra without danger of his life, and then kills B., this shall not be interpreted to be se defendendo, but to be murder or simple homicide (manslaughter), according to the circumstances of the case; for otherwise we should have all the cases of murder or manslaughter by way of interpretation turned into se defendendo." This principle was approved and applied in this state in Brittain's Case, 89 N.C. 481. There it was held that when a prisoner makes an assault upon A., and is reassaulted so fiercely that he cannot retreat without danger of his life, and the prisoner kills A., the killing cannot be justified on the ground of self-defense. The first assailant does the first wrong, and brings upon himself the necessity of slaying, and is therefore not entitled to the favorable interposition of the law. Applying this doctrine to the facts of this case, the court is of opinion that no error has been committed.
According to the prisoner's own version of the occurrence, he was asleep in the waiting room of the station, and was waked up by the slamming of a door. Feeling chilled, he said to the deceased, "Partner, wake that man up, and tell him to put some coal in the stove," and the deceased replied, "I have nothing to do with waking him up." The prisoner replied, "Can't you wake him up, and tell him to put some fire in the stove?" The deceased then used most insulting language towards the prisoner, and the prisoner jumped up, and said, "You have got to take that back," and advanced towards the deceased 10 or 12 feet, when the deceased made a motion as if to draw a pistol, and the prisoner fired and killed him. On cross-examination the prisoner said, A fair and correct interpretation of this testimony puts the prisoner in the wrong at the commencement of the difficulty. Although he may have been grievously insulted, yet in going up to the deceased, having advanced 10 or 12 steps, and saying, "You've got that to take back," the prisoner unlawfully brought on the affray, and under the authorities cited the position of self-defense is not open to him, unless he can show that he quitted the combat before the mortal blow was given. In telling the jury that on the prisoner's own statement, if believed, he was guilty of manslaughter, there was no error, and it is so adjudged.
No error.
The rule of law is daily announced and enforced by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial