Opinion ID: 603513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excusable Homicide Instruction

Text: 45 Knight's second challenge to the jury instructions assigns error to the omission of a jury instruction regarding excusable homicide. A homicide is legally excusable when committed by accident and misfortune, or in doing any lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent. V.I.Code Ann. tit. 14, § 926(1) (1964) (emphasis added). Knight contends that if the jury believed his testimony, they rationally could find that the killing was excusable. 46 Even if we assume that a jury believed all of Knight's testimony, there was no evidence that Knight possessed a lawful intent when the gun discharged. Knight admits that he intentionally was assaulting Miller with an illegally owned firearm when the gun discharged. Although Knight may not have had an intent to kill Miller, the intent to assault and inflict serious bodily harm is not a lawful intent. 47 Knight argues that his intent was lawful because he believed he was in danger. 7 The only evidence supporting this assertion is Knight's statement that he believed the victim often carried a gun. Even if the victim had a gun (which in fact he did not), it is undisputed that Knight initiated the confrontation with Miller. Although Miller never threatened to harm Knight, never assaulted Knight, and never brandished a weapon, Knight beat him over the head with a gun and broomstick. No evidence supports the conclusion that Knight reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of harm when he assaulted Miller. The district court properly declined to include a jury charge on excusable homicide. 48