State v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 07 November 1903 |
| Docket Number | 13,568 |
| Citation | 74 P. 243,67 Kan. 803 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. B. C. SINGLETON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1903.
Appeal from Kingman district court; P. B. GILLETT, judge.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
HOMICIDE--Self-defense--Improper Instruction. In a prosecution for homicide, where the defendant relies upon a claim of self-defense, and testifies that he shot the deceased because he believed himself in danger of receiving great bodily harm, it is error to charge that to sustain this plea the accused must have believed that he was in danger of his life, although in another paragraph of the same instruction it is said that, "if one is pursued or assaulted in such a way as to induce in him a reasonable and well-grounded belief that he is in actual danger of losing his life, or receiving great bodily harm under the influence of such apprehension he will be justified in defending himself, whether the danger be real or only apparent."
W. M. Wallace, for The State.
Fairchild & Calkin, for appellant.
OPINION
B. C. Singleton was prosecuted on a charge of murder and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, from which conviction he appeals. The evidence of the state shows that Singleton and one Art. Rickard met in the street. Rickard accused Singleton of having once come out to his father's place to kill him, and at the same time struck him with his fist. Singleton denied the accusation and offered to explain. Rickard said that he did not want him to explain, called him a vile name, with accompanying profanity, and struck him again. Two bystanders then interfered, one seeking to restrain Rickard, the other Singleton. Singleton stepped back some fifteen feet, Rickard following, pulling the bystander along with him. Singleton then drew a revolver and shot Rickard, death resulting almost immediately. At the trial Singleton relied for aquittal on a claim that the killing was done in self-defense. He testified that when he fired he apprehended a design on the part of Rickard to do him great bodily harm; that he believed himself to be in great danger from him; that he did not know whether or not Rickard had anything on his fist when he struck him; that he was afraid of one of the bystanders, because appearances indicated that he was holding him for Rickard to do him some great bodily harm; that he was afraid his life was in danger; that he shot at Rickard to keep him off from him--keep him from doing him bodily harm--hurting him.
Objection is taken to the sufficiency of the information, but the criticisms made are not well founded. As was said of a less formal pleading in The State v. McGaffin, 36 Kan. 315, 319, 13 P. 560, "the charge which it contains is brief, but we think it states in plain and concise language every element of the crime." An instruction was asked and refused stating that no conviction could be had if any juror, after full consideration of the law and evidence, entertained a doubt of the defendant's guilt. The instruction in the form asked was defective in making no reference to consultation with fellow jurors. Afterward the instruction was submitted by the defendant in correct form, but as this was after the opening argument to the jury the request came too late to make its refusal error. Other instructions asked were either properly refused or covered by instructions that were given.
It is further objected that the evidence did not warrant a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, because there was nothing from which the jury could find that the defendant was engaged in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate any crime less than a felony, this being an essential element of that offense. The same contention was made in The State v. Spendlove, 47 Kan. 160, 28 P. 994, but it was there decided that assault and battery is one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roberson, 46620
...of simple assault and battery. (State v. Spendlove, 47 Kan. 160, 28 P. 994; State v. Bassnett, 80 Kan. 392, 102 P. 461; State v. Singleton, 67 Kan. 803, 74 P. 243; State v. Merriweather, 136 Kan. 337, 15 P.2d 425; State v. Booker, 200 Kan. 166, 434 P.2d 801.) It is also a rule of respectabl......
-
State v. Gendusa
... ... present to the jury the issues on trial." (State v ... Ollman, 114 Kan. 697, 219 P. 963.) Where a materially ... erroneous instruction is given it is not cured merely by a ... statement elsewhere made to the contrary. (State v ... Singleton, 67 Kan. 803, 74 P. 243; 16 C. J. 1054.) ... Apparently ... the word "preponderance" was crossed out with a ... purpose--inadvertently not carried out--to change the ... language so ... [253 P. 600] ... as to require the state's case to be proved beyond a ... reasonable doubt ... ...
- State v. Snyder