Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-20
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRCINIAN-PIIOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.
JACKSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
June 81. 1900.
A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE &C
Quilted OF HOMICIDE ON THE
GROUND OF SELF-DEFENCE,
UNLESS HE REITERATED AS FAR
AS HE COULD WITH SAFETY,
AND DECLINED FURTHER COM
BAT: OR. IF BY HIS OWN MIS-
CONDUCT. HE BROUGHT ABOUT
THE NECESSITY OF THE KILL
ING IN ORDER TO SAVE HIS
OWN LIFE.
"A MAN is PRESUMED TO HAVE IN
TENDED TO DO WHAT HE DID,
UNLESS THE CONTRARY APP
PEARS.
EVIDENCE OF THE GENERAL RE-
PUTATION OF DECEASED AS A
DANGEROUS MAN is INADMISSI-
BILE WHERE THERE is NO EVIL
pENCE TO SHOW THE KILLING
WAS IN SELF-DEFENCE.
Jackson was convicted OF murder in
The second degree and appealed.
The court says:
The first error assigned to the rulings
of the trial court was it's refusal to
allow the character of the deceased az
q dangerous man to be shown. We do
not think such evidence was admissible.
Placing the most favorable construc-
ton upon the evidence OF the accused,
he and the deceased were engaged in a
mutual combat, commenced with their
hands and afterwards continued with
rocks. both parties reaching for rocks
at the same time. From this combat the
accused made no effort TO retire, but
pursued the deceased and threw the
rock which killed him whilst he was
moving away from him. The accused
had not only made out n prima facie
case of obedience. as was thought
necessary in Harrisons case COT Va.
3'O. as a condition precedent to the
right to introduce evidence of the dam
EerouS character of the deceased, but
the evidence did not tend to show that
The defendant did the killing in self
defence. This being so. under all the
authorities the evidence was clearly in
admissible.
The next error assigned is the giving
of instruction No. asked for by the
Commonwealth. That instruction is as
follows:
That on n trial for murder, the law
OF obedience is the law of necessity.
and the necessity relied on to justify
the killing must not arise out of the
prisoners own misconduct. and IL the
jury shall believe from the evidence
Eaulted the deceased, and thereby
brought about the necessity of killing
the deceased. should they believe there
was any such necessity. then the pris-
oner cannot justify the killing of the
deceased by II plea OF necessity, unless
he was without fault in bringing that
necessity upon himself"
The objection urged to this instruc-
ton Is. that 1t virtually told the jury
they must find the accused guilty of
murder If he began the ARRAY merely
TO fn1ict a battery and without any
felonious intent: and that he could not
reduce his crime to any lower grade
than murder. by the plea of self-de-
fence and by proof sustaining such a
plea" We do not so understand the
instruction. Its object was to tell the
jury that the accused could not JUS
tfy the killing of the deceased upon
the ground of self-defence and there
fore be acquitted If they believed that
he had assaulted the deceased and by
such misconduct brought about the
necessity for the killing, If there was
such necessity. in order to save his own
life. That instruction did not instruct
the jury. nor was It intended to in
struct them upon the degree of the
prisoners guilt, whether 1t was murder
or manslaughter. but II was merely in
tended to tell them that upon the facts
alphabetically stated In the instruction
the prisoner was not entitled 70 an
acuuittal.
This is clearly the law. There was
evidence tending to show that the ac-
cused had grossly insulted the decea sed
and made an assault upon him; that
during the ARRAY the accused kicked
the deceased in the stomach or privates
and doubled him up. Wslereupon the
deceased broke loose from the accused
and ran: that the defendant pursued
him. although he was trying to escape:
that whilst the deceased was running
and the accused was following. the lat
ter threw two rocks with all the power
he could. one of which struck the de-
ceased in the back and the other on
the head. causing his death. From this
and other evidence in the cause the
fury might have believed that the ac-
cused insulted and assaulted the de-
ceased for the purpose of doing what
he did do. for man Is presumed to
have intended to do what he did unless
the contrary appears. Affirmed.