Court Opinion

ID: 9772371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:15:49.262604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:43.811897
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge
(dissenting).
I can not agree to the affirmance of this case.
Jackson, the injured party, was the aggressor throughout the difficulty. He started an argument with the appellant while they were in the beer tavern, during which time he invited appellant outside. His attack on the appellant at that time was stopped by bystanders. Appellant then went back into the building, at which time the injured party sent word for him to come back out and meet him down the road. Appellant de-*472dined to do so and remained inside the building' until closing time.
As appellant left the building, the injured party began attacking him again and, in final desperation, appellant was forced into the fight, in the course of which appellant cut the injured party with a knife.
So far as I am concerned, what appellant did was in self-defense. At least, his cutting the injured party was not with the specific intent to kill but for the purpose of cutting the injured party loose from him, which latter course appears to have been his only way out of the difficulty.
I do not agree to putting this man in the penitentiary for doing what was forced upon him by his assailant, who was the injured party in this case.
I therefore enter my dissent.