Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1893-03-24

the defendant inflicted the fatal wounds
with design to effect the death OF tht
person killed, but without deliberatlof
or generalization, you may find him
guilty Of murder in the second degree
If. however the jury should find the de
fendant not guilty of murder in -the
first or second degree, but should be.
Ileve from all the evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant
inflicted the fatal wound in the heat OF
passion, without design to effect the
death, but in a cruel and unusual man.
ef or by means of a dangerous weapon.
they may find him guilty of manslaugh-
ter in the first degree.
If, however, the jury believe that the
defendant did not infiict the fatal wound
but that such wounds were inflicted by
Casa, and that Casa is guilty Of either
of the aforesaid offenses, murder in the
first or second degree, or manslaughter
in the first degree, and further believe
beyond a reasonable doubt that the de-
fendant knowing that such crime was
intended or committed YVES present aid
ing and abe etling, assisting or encOnfag.
ing Casa, in the commission of such
crime, even though he did not directly
inflict the wound or bow:he is guilty as
principal, of the offence committed by
Casa, whether it be murder in the first
or second degree or manslaughter in the
first degree.
In this connection however l call your
attention to Sec. l76 of the penal code
of this state, which provides among
other things that homicide is justitiable
when committed either in the lawful de-
fense of the slayer or his master, when
there is reasonable ground to apprehend
design on the part of the person slain
to commit felony or to do some great
personal injury to the slayer or to such
master, and there is imminent danger Of
such design being accomplished. Under
this statute, if the jury believe from the
eidence that the killing was done by Casa
in the lawful defense of his master and
that there was reasonable ground to ap-
prehend ii design on the part of Artman
to do some great personal injury to Casa
or the defendant, and there was immi-
nent danger of such design being accom-
plished, then Casa is not guilty of such
offense, and the defendant is entitled to
an acquittal.
In other words if the killing was done
by Casa and was justifable under the
rule last stated, the defendant cannot
be criminally liable as an alder or abet-
tor under this statute, too, if the jury
believes that the defendant did the kill
ing in. his lawful defense, when there
was reasonable ground to apprehend a
design on the part of Artman to COM
NIT felony or do him, the defendant.
some great personal injury, and there
vas imminent danger of such design
being accomplished, nothing more be-
ing done by defendant than was reason
ably necessary, then the killing was
justitiable and the defendant is II OF
guilty Of any otfense.
The defendant claims that he did not
inflct the fatal wound and that what
he did do in connection with the affair
he did in self defense. In this connec-
ton also charge you that one who is
threatened with an immediate attack
by an assailant is authorized to act, and
his actions are to be judged in the light
Of the circumstances as they appear tc
him at the time. The question for you
to consider is not so much what was
actually intended or done,-as it is
what did the defendant have reasonable
grounds to believe would be done
Judging from what had occurred, Wha
| had been said, and the threats, if any
that had been made. Did the defend
ant at the time, from his standpoint
have reasonable grounds to apprehend
imminent danger or great bodily harm
The rule in reference to self defense
is this, when any person who is with
out fault himself,i is attacked by anOthe
in such manner or under such circum
stances as to furnish reasonable grOun(
for apprehending a dosing to take ava.
his life, or do him great bodily harm
and there is reasonable grounds for be
leiying the danger imminent, and tina
such design will be accomplished, h
may safely act upon appearance, am
kill the assailant if that be necessary t.
avoid the appreh.nded danger and tn
killing will be justifiable. although tn
appearances were false, and there wa
neither design or intent to do the slaye
serious injury, or danger that it woul
be done upon the defendants ow
theory.
Assuming that he went forward t
Artman to see why the road was al
, structed, and that Artman then strnc
him with the pitch fork, did the d.
, fendant, under the circumstances, hay
:, reasonable grounds for apprehendir
design to take his life. or do SON
y great bodily harm? If he did, al
there was Ieasonable ground, for b
+ lieving the danger imminent, and tn;
T such design would be accomplishe
+ he may safely act upon such appearan,
@ onI Iofou6 hi caIf aud If pooosc ar
f even kill his assai)ant. In consideri'
. tile question, too of apprehensive dang
i and the reasonable ground for rbelievii
v the danger imminent, you may Co
$ slider all the circumstances and VIII
q had been said by the parties. 2
l. yourselves as jury in the defendant
place, view it from his standpoil
o under all the circumstances. as tn
l. existed at she time, with his knowled
q of the situation at the time, and &c
"a slider whether at the time, of the COZ
a mission of the crime, the defendant b
? reason toapprehend imminent Gang
3 However, while human life may
10 taken in self defense, it can be do
,r only as a last tresort, and when no oti
10 practical means to avoid the threaten
harm are apparent to the person
il Isortipg to this right. The killing mi
,e be done in good faith for the purpose
Ell defense, and there must be reasonal
d .Eground toapprehend a design on the p
!, of the persOn slain to do great perSo]