State v. Phillips
Decision Date | 01 July 1910 |
Citation | 59 Wash. 252,109 P. 1047 |
Parties | STATE v. PHILLIPS. |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Okanogan County; E. W. Taylor Judge.
Charles Phillips was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed.
E Fitzgerald, Geo. W. Sampson, and Frank H. Foster, for appellant.
William C. Brown, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree and prosecutes this appeal from the final judgment and sentence of the court.
A demurrer interposed to the information was overruled, and upon this ruling the first error is assigned. The information, following a form often approved by this court charged: 'That he, the said Charles Phillips, in the county of Okanogan, in the state of Washington, on or about the 25th day of July, 1908, purposely and of his deliberate and premediated malice killed one Rawl Siebert,' etc. The specific objection urged against the information is its failure to charge that Rawl Siebert died within a year and a day from the infliction of the mortal wound. There is no merit in this contention. As said by this court in State v. Day, 4 Wash. 104, 29 P. 984: 'The allegation that the defendant killed the deceased is certainly in effect an averment that the latter died.' See, also, State v. Cronin, 20 Wash. 512, 56 P. 26; State v. Yandell, 34 Wash. 409, 75 P. 988; People v. Sanford, 43 Cal. 29; State v. Sly, 11 Idaho, 110, 80 P. 1125.
Errors are assigned on the instructins of the court, and on the refusal of the court to instruct as requested, and in this connection the appellant is met by a motion to strike the instructions and the requests for instructions from the record, because not embodied in a statement of facts or a bill of exceptions. This latter contention cannot prevail. The charge of the court was made wholly in writing, the requests for instructions were also in writing, and section 395, Rem. & Bal. Code, expressly provides that such instructions and requests for instructions, when filed in the cause, become a part of the record, 'and it shall not be necessary or proper, for any purpose, to embody the same in any bill of exceptions or statement of facts.' A number of assignments of error are based on the court's definition of the terms 'deliberation' and 'premiditation'; but these assignments we need not consider, as they apply only to the crime of murder in the first degree, of which the appellant stands acquitted by the verdict of the jury. Two of the instructions excepted to, defining the right of self-defense, were given in the following language:
The appellant earnestly insists that the first-quoted instruction is erroneous because of the closing words: 'The jury, and not the defendant, must be the judges of these matters.' While this part of the charge may not be happily worded, we do not think that it is subject to the criticism, or open to the objection urged against it. The court charged the jury that the appellant had a right to act upon appearances, and that the necessity for taking the life of his adversary must be real or apparent. Of course it was for the jury to say, under all the circumstances, whether the danger was real or apparent, and whether the appellant acted from honest convictions induced by a reasonable belief, or otherwise. We do not think that the language complained of imports anything mere than this. While the second instruction complained of may be a correct statement of the law in the abstract, it had no application to the facts before the court in this case. It was no doubt the established rule of the common law that a person assaulted must retreat to the wall or warn his adversary to desist before taking his life in self-defense, provided always there was time and opportunity for making such retreat or giving such warning, in safety. But it was likewise an established rule of the common law that: State v. Marfaudille, 48 Wash. 117, 92 P. 939, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 346, and authorities cited. In other words the duty to retreat or warn has no application to one against whom a felonious assult is committed with a deadly weapon. It is idle to say that a person assaulted by a highwayman in the street, or by a burglar in his home, must retreat or give warning before he can lawfully resort to the right of self-defense. Without attempting to pass upon conflicting testimony or the credibility of witnesses, the rule as thus stated holds good in this case.
Briefly stated, the situation was this: The appellant and the deceased had some difficulty at Republic some three weeks prior to the homicide in question. As a result of this difficulty, there was testimony tending to show that each had made threats against the life of the other. In anticipation of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Haynes
...this court held that a denial of counsel, which resulted in unfairness to the accused, was a denial of due process.3 In State v. Phillips, 59 Wash. 252, 109 P. 1047, 1050, this court held: '* * * The aid of counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution to every person accused of crime, and this......
-
Com. v. Ladd
... ... Clark, 1951, 106 Cal.App.2d 271, 235 P.2d 56; Head v. State, 1943, 68 Ga.App. 759, 24 S.E.2d 145; Elliott v. Mills, Okl.Cr.1959, 335 [402 Pa. 170] P.2d 1104; State v. Huff, 1876, 11 Nev. 17. In Head v. State, ... 446, 34 L.R.A. 851; Bowen v. State, 1 Or. 270; Hardin v. State, 4 Tex.App. 355; Clark v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 360(4), 18 S.E. 440; State v. Phillips, 59 Wash. 252, 109 P ... Page 505 ... 1047; Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118, 11 S.Ct. 761, 35 L.Ed. 377.' ... To these ... ...
-
Kersten v. Great Northern Railway Company
... ... 444; Chicago, ... R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Moffitt, 75 Ill. 524; Craig v ... Noblesville & S. C. Gravel Road Co. 98 Ind. 109; ... State v. Bowman, 78 N.C. 511; McCarthy v. Boston ... Duck Co. 165 Mass. 165, 42 N.E. 568 ... Medical ... books are not admissible in ... error for the trial court, in the presence of the jury, to ... reflect upon counsel by words or actions. State v ... Phillips, 59 Wash. 252, 109 P. 1047; Dallas Consol ... Electric Street R. Co. v. McAllister, 41 Tex. Civ. App ... 131, 90 S.W. 933; Williams v. West ... ...
-
State v. Pokini
...positions, and he should not be tempted to the unnecessary display of learning or a premature judgment.7 Compare State v. Phillips, 59 Wash. 252, 257, 109 P. 1047, 1049 (1910), where the Supreme Court of Washington held that the following comments of the trial judge to defense counsel in th......