Court Opinion

ID: 9825436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:58:32.007227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:48.584870
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Upon the original consideration of this case, scant consideration was given by us to the written charges, for the reason stated in the opinion, that the confused condition of the record rendered such consideration impracticable.
Upon rehearing, by consent between appellant’s counsel and the Attorney General, the record has been corrected, or completed. And it now appears that written charge No. 7, given at the request of the state, was in the following language:
“The Court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made an effort to arrest the deceased and was resisted by the deceased then the defendant had a legal right to call to his assistance in making the arrest, and it was his duty to call to his assistance any bystander, or number of bystanders to assist in making the arrest, if he could reasonably have done so without shooting and killing the deceased.”
We think, and hold, that the giving of the above written charge, at the request of the state, was prejudicial error.
Code 1923, § 3265, makes it the duty of every person, when required to do so by an officer, to assist him (the officer) in making an arrest. But we are advised of no provision of law which makes it the duty of the officer to call for assistance.
For the error in giving written charge No. 7 at the request of the state, the application for rehearing is granted, the judgment of affirmance set aside, the judgment of conviction reversed, and the cause remanded.