State v. Jump
| Decision Date | 06 December 1886 |
| Parties | STATE v. JUMP. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Polk county.
Indictment for assault with intent to kill. The facts are stated in the opinion.
At the trial the following instructions were given by the court:
“If you find the defendant guilty, you will assess his punishment at im prisonment in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years, or in the county jail not less than six months, or by both a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months, or by fine of not less than one hundred dollars.
“In considering and weighing the evidence of witnesses, you have a right to take into consideration the interest they have in the result of the case; their prejudice, passion, and feeling, if any such appear in evidence; the relation they may sustain towards the parties; their manner and demeanor while testifying; and all other facts and circumstances which add to or detract from the credibility of such witness; and give to the evidence of such witness such credit as you may think it entitled to.
“Even if it be shown by the evidence that the defendant and one Charles Mitchell had a difficulty, yet, before defendant will be justified or excused in law in resorting to the use of any dangerous or deadly weapon upon said Mitchell, it must appear from the evidence that said defendant, at the time of using such weapon, had reasonable ground to fear or believe that said Mitchell was about to do him great bodily harm, and use said weapon for the purpose of protecting himself; and, unless such weapon was so used by defendant, in self-defense, he is liable in law for all the consequences of the use of said weapon.
“A party cannot invite, provoke, or bring on a difficulty, and, after having done so, resort to the use of dangerous or deadly weapons, to defend himself, no matter how great or imminent danger he may be in after he had invited, provoked, or brought on the difficulty.
“Even though Charles Mitchell had threatened the defendant, and such threats had been communicated to the defendant, still defendant is not justifiable, in law, in making any assault, or using any weapons upon said Mitchell, unless, acting upon appearances at the time, he had reasonable ground to believe that said threats were about to be executed by said Mitchell.
“You should acquit the defendant if you have a reasonable doubt of his guilt; yet such doubt must be a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and not a mere possibility of his innocence, and must arise from a full consideration of all the evidence in the case.
“No matter what words of reproach, if any, by Charles Mitchell, to defendant, they do not constitute an assault, or excuse or justify the defendant in using dangerous or deadly weapons upon Mitchell; and if, without legal justification or excuse, defendant, in a crowd of people, used upon Mitchell a dangerous or deadly weapon, and J. M. Martin was thereby wounded, disfigured, or received great bodily harm, then defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment.
“If you believe from the evidence that J. H. Jump. at any time within three years next before the finding of this indictment, at the county of Polk and state of Missouri, threw a rock at Charles Mitchell in the heat of passion, and that rock was a dangerous weapon as thrown, and that said rock struck J. M. Martin, and that said Martin was thereby maimed, wounded, disfigured, or received great bodily harm, or his life was endangered thereby, then the said J. H. Jump is guilty as charged in the indictment, even though he had no design or intention of harming or injuring the said Martin; unless you should further believe that said rock was thrown by defendant in the necessary defense of his person from great bodily harm from Mitchell.”
The following instructions, asked for by the defendant, were refused:
“If Mitchell assaulted or advanced upon Jump in angry or threatening manner, Jump was justified in acting upon appearances; and if, from the conduct of Mitchell, Jump had reasonable cause to apprehend a design upon the part of Mitchell to do him some bodily harm, then Jump was justified in throwing the rock, although in reality the appearances may have been false, and there was neither design upon the part of Mitchell to do him any serious injury, nor danger that it would be done.
“The court instructs the jury that if they believe the first pass was quieted, and that Jump was leaving the place for his home, and while so on his way home, and leaving the place, Mitchell broke loose from those who were holding him or guarding him, and renewed the quarrel by profane and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stallings
... ... fired the shot directly at her with intent to kill her. Hence ... the court properly submitted the issue of accidental killing ... in this instruction. State v. Renfrow, 111 Mo. 589; ... State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220; State v ... Montgomery, 91 Mo. 52; State v. Jump, 90 Mo ... 171. (6) The court did not err in refusing to instruct on ... manslaughter. The evidence offered by the State tended to ... show nothing if not murder, and that of the defense nothing ... if not self-defense. There was no evidence to justify an ... instruction on manslaughter. In ... ...
-
State v. Stallings
...accidental killing in this instruction. State v. Renfrow, 111 Mo. 589; State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220; State v. Montgomery, 91 Mo. 52; State v. Jump, 90 Mo. 171. (6) The court did not err in refusing to instruct on manslaughter. The evidence offered by the State tended to show nothing if not m......
-
State v. Clark
...So are all the precedents in this state and elsewhere. State v. Henson, 81 Mo. 384; State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220, 2 S. W. 394; State v. Jump, 90 Mo. 171, 2 S. W. 279; State v. Montgomery, 91 Mo. 52, 3 S. W. 379; State v. Gilmore, 95 Mo. 554, 8 S. W. 359, 912; State v. Pollard, 139 Mo. 220, 4......
-
State v. Gilmore
...the law transfers the felonious intent from B. to the innocent party who is slain. State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220, 2 S. W. Rep. 394; State v. Jump, 90 Mo. 171, 2 S. W. Rep. 279; State v. Montgomery, 91 Mo. 52, 3 S. W. Rep. 379. The defendant has not been represented by counsel in this court, b......