State v. Garrett
| Citation | 170 Mo. 395,70 S.W. 686 |
| Parties | STATE v. GARRETT. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1902 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from circuit court, Cooper county; Jas. E. Hazell, Judge.
Arthur Garrett was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and appeals. Reversed.
John Cosgrove, for appellant. The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.
The defendant, a negro, comes to this court on appeal from the Cooper circuit court, where, upon an information charging him with assault with intent to kill one Wm. A. Harris by shooting at him with a pistol, he was found guilty, his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary, and judgment went on the verdict. The trouble in this cause arose out of the following circumstances: Wm. A. Harris was the owner of a livery stable in Boonville, and hired a team of horses and a buggy to one John Drew, a negro, who wanted to drive out into the county. Drew, the horses having been hitched to the buggy, drove it away from the livery stable. A few minutes thereafter Harris saw his team coming up street with two negro boys—defendant and Roy Field—in it, who were driving. Drew, it seems, had at first taken defendant into the buggy with him, and then, when Drew got out of the buggy, and went into Joe Stephens' drug store, Roy Field got into the buggy, and then he and defendant drove off down street, and in a few moments returned, and stopped again in front of Stephens' drug store, when Harris, accosting defendant, demanded to know what defendant was doing with that team, and ordered him to get out of the buggy. This order was repeated three or four times, when defendant told Harris (as defendant states) that "John was in Mr. Stephens' drug store," and he [defendant] didn't know that he had to get out of the buggy, or something like that, when defendant, after being ordered to get out, as above stated, finally said [so Harris states]: —and began to crawl out of the buggy. Harris then took the buggy whip out of the hand of the other boy, who was driving, or from the socket, and struck defendant with the loaded end of the whip just as he was in the act of getting out of the buggy, or just as he got out, Harris could not remember which. After defendant got out of the buggy, and stepped back 10 or 15 feet, he drew his pistol and shot. Harris did not know...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Malone
...right of perfect self-defense, unless he used them for the very purpose of inducing an assault. State v. Higgerson, 157 Mo. 395; State v. Garrett, 170 Mo. 395; State v. Ball, 262 S.W. 1045. (b) In including therein the sentence, "On the other hand, it is not enough that the defendant believ......
-
State v. Malone
...... "sought the difficulty." Words alone, even though. apt to bring on a difficulty, will not deprive the defendant. of the right of perfect self-defense, unless he used them for. the very purpose of inducing an assault. State v. Higgerson, 157 Mo. 395; State v. Garrett, 170. Mo. 395; State v. Ball, 262 S.W. 1045. (b) In. including therein the sentence, "On the other hand, it. is not enough that the defendant believed in the existence of. such danger, but he must also have had reasonable cause for. so believing before he can be acquitted upon the ground ......
-
State v. Reeves
...an intended felony. This is called "imperfect self-defense." State v. Eastham, 240 Mo. 241, loc. cit. 251, 144 S. W. 492; State v. Garrett, 170 Mo. 395, 70 S. W. 686; State v. Talmage, 107 Mo. 543, loc. cit. 557, 571, 17 S. W. 990; State v. Darling, 202 Mo. 150, loc. cit. 171, 172, 100 S. W......
-
The State v. Eastham
...is guilty of manslaughter in the fourth degree, but not of a higher crime. [State v. Partlow, 90 Mo. 608, 616, 4 S.W. 14; State v. Garrett, 170 Mo. 395, 70 S.W. 686; State v. Darling, 202 Mo. 150, 100 S.W. In this case, if George Eastham intended only an ordinary battery upon Stacey, the de......