[Download] "State v. Jennings" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: State v. Jennings
• Author : Supreme Court of Montana
• Release Date : January 15, 1934
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 60 KB

Description

Homicide ? Self-defense ? Prior Acts of Violence by Deceased ? Evidence ? Offer of Proof ? Erroneous Refusal. Criminal Law ? Exclusion of Evidence ? When Offer of Proof Necessary to Warrant Review of Ruling. 1. In both civil and criminal cases the rule is that where an objection to evidence is sustained an offer of proof is necessary to enable the supreme court to review the ruling, only when the answer of the witness is not apparent. Same ? Homicide ? Self-defense ? Prior Acts of Violence by Decedent ? When Admissible in Evidence. 2. In a prosecution for homicide, evidence relating to particular acts of violence committed by deceased toward others of a nature likely to excite apprehension on the part of defendant is admissible only when the plea of self-defense is interposed, and when a proper foundation is laid by proof of some overt act justifying such defense; whether such a foundation is laid being addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court. Same ? Self-defense ? Defendants Right to Rely on Appearances of Danger to Himself ? Admissibility of Evidence. 3. One claiming self-defense in a prosecution for murder had a right to act upon appearances and determine for himself whether there was real danger to himself from decedent, and he should be allowed to prove every fact and circumstance known to him and connected with decedent which was fairly calculated to create an apprehension for his own safety when attacked by the latter. Same ? Self-defense ? Offer of Proof of Testimony Relating to Prior Acts of Violence by Deceased ? Improper Refusal ? Case at Bar. 4. Under the last rule above, held that where defendant charged with murder at the time of the affray was sitting in a pool-hall with his back to the wall, on one side of him a hot stove and on the other a table, so that there was no avenue of escape when deceased, a much larger man than defendant, and who had threatened to kill him, approached from the front and struck at defendant with a cast-iron cuspidor, whereupon defendant drew a small pocket-knife and inflicted several wounds upon his assailant, one of which penetrated the brain tissue, the trial court committed error in refusing an offer of proof to show that defendant prior to the affray had been advised by the offered witness that he had been severely cut by deceased about a year prior to defendants encounter with him. Same ? Assailants Loss of Weapon After First Attack ? When Defendant not Deprived of Right to Claim Self-defense. 5. Where defendant pleading self-defense to a charge of murder was a much smaller and weaker man than deceased, the fact that after the first blow the latter lost his weapon did not deprive defendant of his right to claim self-defense in thereafter retaliating - Page 81 with a knife, since in view of the disparity in physique he could reasonably apprehend great bodily harm to himself even though his assailant was unarmed.

Free PDF Download "State v. Jennings" Online ePub Kindle