Stubbs v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1900 |
| Parties | STUBBS. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE—MUTUAL COMBAT.
The provisions of law relating to justifiable homicide where the parties had been engaged in mutual combat, contained in section 73 of the Penal Code, are not applicable to a case where there has been no mutual combat, and where the defense relied upon is that contained in sections 70 and 71 of the Penal Code.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Wilkinson county; John C. Hart, Judge.
Henry Stubbs was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.
Allen & Pottle and John W. Lindsey, for plaintiff in error.
H. G. Lewis, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrill, Atty. Gen., for the State.
After having been convicted of the offense of murder, Henry Stubbs made a motion for a new trial. This motion was overruled, and Stubbs excepted. The evidence discloses that there had been no mutual combat, nor any fight of any kind, between the accused and the deceased. According to the evidence of the accused, the deceased was advancing upon him with a drawn knife. The circumstances were sufficient, the accused claims, to excite the fears of a reasonable man that a felony was about to be committed upon him, and, in order to prevent it, he killed the deceased. The trial judge charged the jury properly upon the different grades of homicide, but in charging upon the subject of justifiable homicide, and discussing the doctrine of reasonable fears, erred in the following charge upon that subject, which was given immediately after, and in connection with, his charge upon the subject of self-defense: "Also the danger must seem to appear so urgent and pressing at the time of the killing that, in order to save his own life, it appeared then and there that the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and it must appear also that the person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really and in good faith endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given." This charge was evidently taken in substance from section 73 of the Penal Code, and instructs the jury that the circumstances must seem to the accused so urgent and pressing, at the time of the killing, that it was necessary to take the life of the deceased in order to save his own life. The defense in the casewas predicated upon sections 70 and 71 of the Penal Code, which declare that a man will be justifiable in killing another to prevent the latter from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lightsy v. State
...1895, §§ 70, 71, 73, pointing out clearly when either or all of these sections would be applicable and when not. See, also, Stubbs v. State, 110 Ga. 916, 36 S. E. 200; Wheeler v. State, 112 Ga. 43, 37 S. E. 126; Freeman v. State, 112 Ga. 48, 37 S. E. 172; Heard v State, 114 Ga. 90, 39 S. E.......
-
Lightsy v. State
... ... 9, 29 S.E. 309, 65 Am.St.Rep. 277, where ... Mr. Justice Little elaborately treats the subject of ... justifiable homicide under Pen. Code 1895, §§ 70, 71, 73, ... pointing out clearly when either or all of these sections ... would be applicable and when not. See, also, Stubbs v ... State, 110 Ga. 916, 36 S.E. 200; Wheeler v ... State, 112 Ga. 43, 37 S.E. 126; Freeman v ... State, 112 Ga. 48, 37 S.E. 172; Heard v State, ... 114 Ga. 90, 39 S.E. 909; Jordan v State, 117 Ga ... 405, 43 S.E. 747. In this case there was no witness to the ... act of killing. The ... ...
- Lewis v. State
-
Fullwood v. State
...evidence did not warrant the charge on the law of mutual combat. The case was reversed for that reason. The same is true of Stubbs v. State, 110 Ga. 916, 36 S.E. 200, cited by the defendant. Another case relied on is Warrick v. State, 125 Ga. 133, 53 S.E. 1027. That case was one where the t......