Court Opinion

ID: 9688883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:10:35.02967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.846056
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
In his brief in support of his application for rehearing, counsel for appellant asserts that we erred in the holding that charge X was adequately covered by the court’s oral charge, and requests that we point out what part of the oral charge covered refused charge X.
Counsel argues that charge X was not covered by the court’s oral charge in that:
“A killing resulting from an accident, although carelessly done, would constitute manslaughter and not murder.
“We sincerely believe that the jury should have been permitted the opportunity to consider whether the killing resulted from an accident brought about by the carelessness or the lack of due care on the part of the accused and that when this right was denied him it constituted reversible error.
“No where in the oral charge or in the given requested charges, was this aspect of the evidence presented to the jury for its consideration.”
We are not in accord with counsel’s contention.
Requested charge X which was refused by the court was as follows:
“X. I charge you gentlemen of the jury that if you believe from the evidence of this case that the shooting of the deceased was accidental, then I charge you that you can not find the defendant guilty of murder in any degree.”
In its oral charge the court instructed the jury as follows:
“Now, gentlemen, you have heard the testimony offered to show that the homicide in this case was caused by an accident. Now, an accident has been defined as that which happens without one’s direct intention, happening without design, unexpectedly, or by chance, or contingency.
“Now, it is the law that a homicide by accident is excusable and it is the law that if by misfortune or misadveri*70ture, while its the performance of a lawful act, exercising due care, and without intention to do harm, human life is taken, the law will excuse. There must, however, be a concurrence of these facts, and the absence of anyone will involve guilt.
“Let me read that again: It is the law that a homicide, by accident is excusable and it is the law that if by misfortune or misadventure, while in the performance of a lawful act, exercising due care, and without intention to do harm, human life is taken, the law will excuse.”
In that portion of the oral charge set out above, it appears that the court accorded to the appellant a more favorable principle than that enunciated in refused charge X, in that, the court correctly instructed the jury that a homicide resulting from an accident is excusable, not only as to murder but as to manslaughter as well.
We therefore adhere to our former conclusion that charge X was adequately covered by the court’s oral charge.
Application overruled.